On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 10:35:25PM -0700, Stig Venaas wrote: > The MLDv2 bis document is not defining a new protocol, we are just > progressing MLDv2 to Internet Standard. We should and cannot make any > changes that would render existing implementations non-compliant, Even though I threw in the mail about this, I don't have a strong preference to making any change here. The room discussion in 6man on the RA draft brought up the MLDv2 bis doc and it wasn't clear what's going on -- and if there is something to be done, it'd be rather poor timing. > and also, we want to only have protocol definitions that have multiple > implementations and known to work well. Removing RA would be a pretty > big change. I don't think removing RA is on the table. If anything, I think it would be weakening the requirements to check that RA is present, i.e. allowing receive processing without RA. It would need to remain a MUST to include it on send though, as the sender has no idea if the receiver (be it router or snooping switch) allows this. > I'm not sure why MLDv2 is defined with RA, might it make a difference > to snooping switches? I don't believe it does, AFAIK the same mechanisms filter out e.g. ICMPv6 RA guard, which doesn't have router alert on it. Cheers, equi (David) P.S.: our (relatively recent, 2yo) MLD implementation requires RA; if anything I'd like to know if I can and/or should remove that check. https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/blame/bd86964db816ba1ac628f1b1f5099fd35f157ea5/pimd/pim6_mld.c#L1712 -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
