[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Open issues list? [Re: New (-02) version of IPv6 CPE Router draft is available for review]
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org, "Hemant Singh \(shemant\)" <email@example.com>, "Wes Beebee \(wbeebee\)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: Open issues list? [Re: New (-02) version of IPv6 CPE Router draft is available for review]
- From: Francois-Xavier Le Bail <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 05:28:05 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: Brian E Carpenter <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=yq3STgNPRL7SWQZzjmWkWIpS/sp+oYtJKxXA3lR8sSJ2Dove4NYJutdN0vxj5sjaamhMNDkiEr4zAXEEs858UY7shYfoDzaXMrrjXR1pq/IObYR8+hOwHxKF2DanAbOMNw00mKQT29GGBiNwr10oboyVWw5+BGqFdtdKDflIn2E=;
What consideration about MLD snooping [RFC4541] on the LAN bridge ?
Without it, a multicast flow will flood all segments on all ports.
Significant bandwidth can be wasted by flooding.
| Routing CPE w/ bridge |
| +------+ +------+ |
Port1-|-| | | | |
Port2-|-| | LAN| | |
| +------+ +------+ |
(David's reference for a routing CPE with internal MAC bridge)
--- On Tue, 7/29/08, Hemant Singh (shemant) <email@example.com> wrote:
> From: Hemant Singh (shemant) <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Subject: RE: Open issues list? [Re: New (-02) version of IPv6 CPE Router draft is available for review]
> To: "Brian E Carpenter" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
> Cc: "Alain Durand" <email@example.com>
> Date: Tuesday, July 29, 2008, 4:29 AM
> I and Wes can recall only two issues that have not reached
> The big one was Addressing of the CPE Router WAN interface
> because NTT,
> AT&T, a few folks from the DSL Forum were not in
> complete agreement - I
> and Wes are working this one and this is close to closure.
> We talked
> with NTT yesterday and David Miles who works in the DSL
> Forum. We will
> send email on this closure sometime today.
> Next one is use of ULA for the home network on the LAN
> interface(s) of
> the CPE Router. What we have in mind ULA lasts on the
> device till the
> next reboot (ULA will not be renumbered on the device
> acquiring a GUA)
> upon which the same ULA or a different ULA may be generated
> by the
> device. We are saying the LAN interface(s) will use ULA
> for the
> lifetime of the CPE Router till the router reboots. Alain
> is one person
> who would like to renumber the ULA on the LAN interface
> acquiring a GUA.
> I didn't see enough justification from him to change
> the draft in the
> ULA regard. Remi has also replied to Alain's concerns
> and claimed they
> are non-issues.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com] On
> Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 11:34 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Cc: Alain Durand
> Subject: Open issues list? [Re: New (-02) version of IPv6
> CPE Router
> draft is available for review]
> There wasn't time in the meeting today for me to ask
> Where is the open issues list for this draft, so that we
> can identify
> the non-consensus items and drive them to a resolution?