Subject: MLDv1 still in the wild?

From: Jeroen Massar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 14:12:43 +0100

Hi,

I was wondering, if anybody had a rough idea how many MLDv1-only
listeners are still out there in the wild. My assumption by now is that
current code out there (thus not stuff that has been up and running and
never upgraded for the last 5 years orso ;) all supports MLDv2... or is
there a major platform which does not do MLDv2?

Greets,
 Jeroen

---

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 11:08:51 -0800

> there a major platform which does not do MLDv2?

Not sure, but Apple only just now started supporting SSM, and I think
perhaps it was all MLDv1 until then. So there might be a lot of MLDv1
Apples out there still.

Stig

>
> Greets,
>   Jeroen
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email-masked]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 09:38:15 -0500

> there a major platform which does not do MLDv2?

On the open-source side, I know of OpenBSD and NetBSD which are still 
MLDv1 only.

FreeBSD and Linux have MLDv2.

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 17:42:56 -0300

> On the open-source side, I know of OpenBSD and NetBSD which are still

Even if they implemented MLDv2, I'd argue that the default should
probably be MLDv1 rather than MLDv2: unless non-local multicast is
employed, MLDv2 is unnecessarily complex if it's just for the purpose of
ND and the like.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 15:17:42 -0600

> employed, MLDv2 is unnecessarily complex if it's just for the purpose of

This is true.

However, RFC 5790, on Lightweight IGMP/MLD makes it easy to support
SSM. I think there is open source support for 5790 somewhere.

Behcet

---

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:10:27 -0800

On 2/29/2012 1:17 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Fernando Gont<[email-masked]>  wrote:

I think the main reason OpenBSD and NetBSD don't support SSM is
Apple's IPR claim. Without SSM support, there is little reason to
support MLDv2.

I'm a bit curious about the reason for the question. At least MLDv2
routers are supposed to support MLDv1 compatibility mode.

> SSM. I think there is open source support for 5790 somewhere.

What it does is basically removing exclude mode for a non-empty
source list. It is still a lot of work compared to IGMPv2/MLDv1.
Apart from hosts in general, I can imagine a lot of special purpose
devices that never needs SSM to only implement MLDv1.

Stig