Re: [ssm] Our ssm status

[Tom Pusateri <pusateri@juniper.net>]

Well, the reason this probably happened is that the Juniper code
pre-dates the RFC and the intent of the router alert was for
packets going to group addresses that would be forwarded through
the router. Therefore, the group specific queries are the only
queries that really need the router alert. General queries go
to the 224.0.0.1 group which the hosts should really accept
regardless of the router alert option. I think the RFC is wrong
here and I think Microsoft is wrong for dropping these but we'll
be glad to conform for the good of the 'net and provide an update.

Thanks,
Tom

In message <C9588551DE135A41AA2626CB6453093701C9D795@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.w=
indep
loy.ntdev.microsoft.com> you write:
>Jon Zeeff writes:
>> 2) Use of SSM here is held up by the lack of IP Router Alert
>> option in IGMP packets from our Juniper router.=A0 Apparently ]
>> this causes Windows XP to ignore the packets.
>
>Right.  This is per the IGMPv3 RFC, and hence should be true for
>any IGMPv3 host, not just XP.  =

>
>Section 4 says: =

>> Every IGMP message described in this document ...
>> carries an IP Router Alert option [RFC-2113] in its IP header.
>
>Section 9 says:
>>  o Hosts SHOULD ignore v2 or v3 Queries without the Router-Alert
>>    option.
>
>-Dave
>
>_______________________________________________
>ssm mailing list
>ssm@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm
>

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