[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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



Bill Nickless wrote:
At 08:24 AM 10/17/2002 -0400, Brian Haberman wrote:

You're not wrong.  The key is convincing switch vendors to support
IGMPv3 and MLDv2 snooping ASAP.  Tell your vendors you want/need
this functionality.  And tell them that you want them to implement
draft-ietf-magma-snoop-02.txt.

What you just wrote is the orthodox view in the IP multicast community.

When I read that, I hear the IP multicast community saying:

"We developed this IP multicast thing before 802.11 switches existed. MAC-based receiver registration isn't needed on single-collision-domain 10Base5 Ethernet segments, so we didn't bother with that when we developed the IP multicast protocols like IGMP.

"If the world is going to use 802.11 MAC-based switches, well then the 802.11 MAC-based switches had better emulate a single-collision-domain segment, interpreting IPv4/IGMP and IPv6/MLD datagrams as necessary. We're not going to change our way of doing things because we were here first."
Sounds to me like you just described a MAC-layer group management
protocol.  Since the IETF generally stays at Layer 3 (Sub-IP
excluded), it is out of our control.

Perhaps you should petition the IEEE to develop this protocol or
write a draft on how a layer 3 devices should advertise their
interest in receiving packets on layer 2 addresses.

Regards,
Brian