Subject: RE: Node Requirements - issue 1

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:42:05 +0300

Hi Pekka,

> I might a bit hesitant to add a MUST for MLDv2, as MLDv2 is 
> new and much more code than MLDv1; rather like MUST for MLDv1 
> as above, SHOULD for overall MLDv2.

I tend to agree, but I am not an expert in MLDv2, so I just 
want to know what will break if nodes don't impelement it.
 
John

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 09:53:58 -0400

> want to know what will break if nodes don't impelement it.

Nothing will break.  New implementations that support MLDv2
can, if necessary, fall back to MLDv1 in the presence of
older versions.

I don't think code size should even be considered.  MLDv2
is a more robust protocol that allows for newer functionality,
like SSM.

Another point to consider is that RFC 2710 (MLDv1) will not
progress beyond Proposed Standard.

If the point of this document is to tell new implementors what
they should implement, then my feeiling is that the group
management protocol should be MLDv2.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:08:25 +0300 (EEST)

> management protocol should be MLDv2.

I agree.

But there is more to it than just new implementations.

To be fair.. if NodeReqs is intended to take e.g. 12-18 months to finish
(usual with IETF, unfortunately), sure, why not.. then the point is 
probably already moot.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords