[ipv6-wg] RIPE 554 Errata Page

Jan

I agree with your proposals. Both for new doc (even if I would love to get he security beefed up!) And for the errata/clarifications about MLD

Eric

----- Message d'origine -----
De : Jan Zorz @ go6.si [mailto:jan at go6.si]
Envoyé : Thursday, May 30, 2013 12:02 PM
À : ipv6-wg at ripe.net <ipv6-wg at ripe.net>
Objet : Re: [ipv6-wg] RIPE 554 Errata Page

On 5/29/13 10:59 AM, Ivan Pepelnjak wrote:
> Have to agree. MLD Snooping should be OPTIONAL (or not required) for L3
> device __that has NO L2 forwarding functionality__.

Agree...

>
> 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.

<evil smile>

>
> Jan & Sander - can we get something along the lines of the first
> paragraph into Errata doc?

As this suggestion makes total technical sense to me, I would say to 
change that line in something like:

"If a support for device ports operating also in L2 mode is required, 
then the device must support MLDv2 snooping [RFC4541]"

Now, the chairs and community needs to decide, if that falls under 
errata or is that a bigger change.

Personal opinion: adding RFC6946, RFC 6620 (SAVI FCFS), RFC 6583 (NDP 
cache exhaustion) and other RFCs to the document - that's a big change 
and should go in next editorial of a -bis. Changing MLDv2 snooping from 
unconditional to "if functionality required" and still in mandatory 
section - that might be seen as not that big change after all.

Cheers, Jan

P.S: Compiling the lists of changes, will post the link when 
considerably long enough ;)