From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Flavio Leitner Subject: Re: possible bug in IPv6 MLD retransmissions Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 18:21:27 -0300 Message-ID: <20130522212127.GF17259@obelix.rh> References: <20130517032449.GA3595@obelix.rh> <20130518173105.GD29528@order.stressinduktion.org> <20130521150616.GA8513@obelix.rh> <20130522004027.GD32093@order.stressinduktion.org> <20130522172711.GC17240@obelix.rh> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Miller , Hannes Frederic Sowa , netdev@vger.kernel.org, netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org, Hideaki YOSHIFUJI To: David Stevens Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:18187 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753204Ab3EVVVf (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 May 2013 17:21:35 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 02:24:34PM -0400, David Stevens wrote: > Flavio Leitner wrote on 05/22/2013 01:27:11 PM: > > > It becomes a bug (and that's why I started with 'possible') if dad > > completes after the two MLD reports sent with ``::'' source, because > > routers will ignore those initial reports and the system is left out. > > No, unsolicited reports are not necessary for MLD. If there are no > other listeners for a group, the reports will be triggered within > one query interval after a valid LL addr is there. Agreed that they aren't necessary, but I also don't think it's a good solution to wait for the query interval. -- fbl