Bill Nickless wrote:
At 03:22 PM 10/17/2002 -0400, Brian Haberman wrote:Slow down, Bill. MAGMA is not specifying how L-2 devices behave. The snooping draft is guidance to switch vendors who want to do IGMP/MLD snooping. It is meant as an Informational document. Nothing more.
I stand corrected on my terminology. Let me try again.
So why are the IETF working groups like MAGMA trying to guide Layer 2 switch multicast behavior?
Um, because some switch vendors have asked for guidance.
Have you (or Ken) pushed on your router vendors to support this in conjunction with the switch vendors?
I can say that there's some adoption by switch vendors:
Cisco Systems already supports GARP/GMRP. See, for example,
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps700/products_configuration_guide_chapter09186a00800eb758.html
D-Link Systems claims future support for GARP/GMRP.
http://www.dlink.com/products/switches/des6000/
As of 2000 (at least), Cabletron/Enterasys supported GARP/GMRP.
http://www.cabletron.com/support/relnotes/rn_2806-06.html
Also, other areas of the IETF are aware of GARP/GMRP. For example, RFC 2878 (Standards Track) refers to GMRP support for the PPP Bridging Control Protocol (BCP). http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2878.txt
Cool. That is a small step in the right direction. Brian