Subject: RE: IPv6 w.g. Last Call on "IPv6 for Some Second and Third Genera tion Cellular Hosts"

From: "Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 13:17:58 +0200

> >=> Do you mean that MLD is used for the ALL Nodes mcast
  > >address ofr example?
  > 
  > 	yes.

=> I've never seen that in any spec.
I guess you are saying that it's needed for L2
switches that snoop MLD messages to decide
on mcast forwarding of mcast ethernet frames?

If so, then we don't have this situation in 
cellular networks. What we're dealing with is
a p2p link with no multicast capability. 

Hesham

  > 
  > itojun
  > --------------------------------------------------------------------
  > 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]
  > --------------------------------------------------------------------
  > 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 20:30:26 +0900

>a p2p link with no multicast capability. 

	even under the above situation, there's no such clause that permits
	omission of MLD in RFC2710 (MLD).  if you have any reference please
	let me know, i'm interested in knowing the rationale for the claim.

itojun