[Last-Call] Re: [pim] Re: Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-pim-3810bis-10

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Toerless,

We can call it MLD2.1 or MLD3, or anything else. A rose by any other name would still smell sweet!

Do we have the will and energy to begin the task? If so, I am willing to contribute clock cycles.

                                                                                                       Ron

Juniper Business Use Only


From: Toerless Eckert <tte@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2024 1:12 PM
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke@xxxxxxxxx>; David Lamparter <equinox@xxxxxxxxxx>; Mohamed Boucadair <mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx>; Erik Kline <ek.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>; 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: Re: [pim] Re: [Last-Call] Re: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-pim-3810bis-10
 
[External Email. Be cautious of content]


I am not aware of any work for MLDv3 right, however:

In the process of rfc3810 (as well as the IGMPv3 equivalent), we did run across
a couple of changes that i think the PIM-WG (maybe even more so MBONED-WG) feels to
be beneficial for the user/operator community, however, they would likely make it difficult,
if not impossible to get Internet Standard classification. So those changes might actually
be something to consider for a next protocol revision.

Personally, i would not necessarily call it MLDv3 but maybe something like MLDv2.1:
as much as possible backward compatibility would still be core goal. To the extend
of router-alert i think we would want to say "MUST support receiving messages with router-alert,
SHOULD NOT send messages with router alert".

Cheers
    Toerless

On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 08:08:54PM +0000, Ron Bonica wrote:
> Folks,
>
> First, I agree that it would be a mistake to remove the Router Alert from MLDv2. The V6OPS draft isn't even requesting that.
>
> However, if we are working on an MLDv3, this may present a very good opportunity to remove the dependency on Router Alert.
>
> I wasn't aware that MLDv3 was in the works? Is there a draft that I can read?
>
>                                                                                     Ron
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> ________________________________
> From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2024 12:19 AM
> To: David Lamparter <equinox@xxxxxxxxxx>; 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: Re: [Last-Call] Re: [pim] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-pim-3810bis-10
>
>
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>
>
> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-3810bis/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Ays31zmiHtMWGlKxD2ESMB_XAvuPhd9g740XxdaSKJO2AeUuHdJlX_HT8Lw8YZgzJ8dMFIzzC1C7$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-3810bis/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!D3IbuZhdqjLnM0Q3c0UmMwHot7gIMSsRcFVXxbQqCsY_9iX1Od4M7Didztu356LG0BHdqa1xeHY2DCk$>
> [1] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-router-alert/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Ays31zmiHtMWGlKxD2ESMB_XAvuPhd9g740XxdaSKJO2AeUuHdJlX_HT8Lw8YZgzJ8dMFL9rLf1Y$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-router-alert/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!D3IbuZhdqjLnM0Q3c0UmMwHot7gIMSsRcFVXxbQqCsY_9iX1Od4M7Didztu356LG0BHdqa1xRIONli4$>
>
> --
> last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx

--
---
tte@xxxxxxxxx
-- 
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux