[ipv6-wg] RIPE 554 Errata Page
Ivan Pepelnjak ipepelnjak at gmail.com
Wed May 29 10:59:32 CEST 2013
Have to agree. MLD Snooping should be OPTIONAL (or not required) for L3 device __that has NO L2 forwarding functionality__. Not sure how many devices would match that description, and I'm almost positive this is not what Eric is looking for, but this is the only safe way to remove MLD snooping requirement. Explaining why you don't need MLD snooping on a L3-only port on a L2/L3 switch is customer education ;) Start by thanking the marketing "wizards" that turned bridges and routers into switches. Jan & Sander - can we get something along the lines of the first paragraph into Errata doc? Ivan On 29.05.2013 10:33 , Tim Chown wrote: > On 29 May 2013, at 08:43, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke at cisco.com> wrote: > [...] >> As a vendor, we have an issue with 'MLD snooping (RFC 4541)' for a layer-3 device/switch which of course if you are a layer-3 port, you implement MLD (RFC 3810) as stated in RIPE 554 but you do not implement the snooping which is applicable to a layer-2 port. It can appear as splitting hair but you cannot imagine the number of hours/calls I have to spend on this hair splitting... So, please remove the MLD snooping requirement from a layer-3 device. > You say "layer-3 device/switch", I think you really mean "layer 3-only device". If the device offers any layer 2 functionality, MLD snooping becomes important. We had this issue with a specific brand of printer that fell over in the face of seeing a few HD IPv6 IP-TV channels only last month.
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]