W/o any hat and thank you, David, to bring the elephant in the room topic (no sarcasm here, just a sincere thank you to open the discussion).
Removing the router alert from MLDv2 would be such a drastic change (not even required by the 6MAN draft) that IMHO it cannot be named MLDv2-bis and should be another
MLD version (and I know that MLDv3 is in the cooking).
Let’s not overreact here ;-)
Regards
-éric
From: David Lamparter <equinox@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, 23 July 2024 at 16:13
To: Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx>, Erik Kline <ek.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: rtg-dir@xxxxxxxx <rtg-dir@xxxxxxxx>, draft-ietf-pim-3810bis.all@xxxxxxxx <draft-ietf-pim-3810bis.all@xxxxxxxx>, last-call@xxxxxxxx <last-call@xxxxxxxx>, pim@xxxxxxxx <pim@xxxxxxxx>, draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-router-alert@xxxxxxxx <draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-router-alert@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Last-Call] Re: [pim] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-pim-3810bis-10
Hi all,
having just been in 6man: there is a bit of unfortunate parallel
"business" going on with draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-router-alert[1].
That draft is suggesting the IPv6 router alert option be deprecated.
3810bis makes no change to MLD behavior, which is that receivers MUST
discard packets without router alert. (sections 6.2, 7.4, 7.6 and 10)
3810bis[0] is quite far into the publication process, but it might still
make sense to look at this?
(I'll also bring this up in tomorrow's pim session.)
Cheers,
equi
(David)
[0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-3810bis/
[1]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-router-alert/
--
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
|
--
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
