Re: [ssm] Document Action: An Overview of Source-Specific Multicast(SSM) Deployment to Informational

[Toerless Eckert <eckert@cisco.com>]

On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 03:59:31PM +0200, Hitoshi Asaeda wrote:
> In fact, and unfortunately, you are right.
> There was some lack of important statements in IGMPv3.

Well, yes, but that decision was intentional back then by proponents 
that wanted to ensuer maximum automatic backward compatibility.

> One is a following sentence:
> 	"the Querier continues to send IGMPv3 queries, regardless of
> 	 its Multicast Address Compatibility Mode."
> This should be included in the RFC. But it was too late. Actually,
> since we've found the problem before the MLDv2's last-call, it is
> included in Sect.8.3.2 of draft-vida-mld-v2-07.txt, though.

Ok, so in MLD i need not only start to send MLDv1 reports, i also have to
have a smaller IP address to win and become the querier ? How much
does this effectively buy me ?

> Other is something related to "host compatibility mode" which I post
> the problem in MAGMA ML.
> <http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/magma/current/msg00027.html>
> But I heard this mail was also too late. Yes, it is also included in
> MLDv2's I-D (Sect.10.1) as follows:
> 	"A forged Version 1 Query message will put MLDv2 listeners on
> 	 that link in MLDv1 Host Compatibility Mode.  This scenario
> 	 can be avoided by providing MLDv2 hosts with a configuration
> 	 option to ignore Version 1 messages completely."

Sure, such configuration options will be all over us and make deployment
even more complex. You can pretty much figure that only the default
behaviour will be what 90% of people will have installed. 

> FYI, my IGMPv3/MLDv2 implementations (incl. KAME) support them, anyway.

Is it on by default ? 

Cheers
	Toerless
_______________________________________________
ssm mailing list
ssm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm