Re: New draft on embedding the RP address in IPv6 multicast address

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, ken lindahl wrote:
> >Sure, IGMPv3, MLDv2 snooping would be nice but it seems hypocritical to
> >say this is the reason why SSM isn't being used..
> 
> IGMPv2 snooping is enabled now on large parts of campus. i don't think
> IGMPv3 will play nicely with that. disabling IGMP snooping so that SSM
> will work doesn't seem like a step forward. where's the hypocracy in
> that?

Why would a switch with IGMP snooping enabled that doesn't understand a
word about IGMPv3 not handle IGMPv2 snooping properly even though SSM
multicast is broadcasted initally to every port in a segment with
receivers? (Note: most switches with IGMP snooping enabled forward IPv6 
multicasts just fine.)

If that's not possible, seems like a huge problem with IGMP (snooping):
either specification or implementation.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords