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 ;)