[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: New draft on embedding the RP address in IPv6 multicast address
- To: Bill Nickless <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: New draft on embedding the RP address in IPv6 multicast address
- From: Brian Haberman <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:48:52 -0400
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Delivery-date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 11:47:36 -0700
- Envelope-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Organization: No Organization Here
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826
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
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
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.