All things related to multicast

[Brent Sweeny <>]

don't you have to have v6-aware pim snooping too?  lots of v4-aware
pim-snooping switches out there now, but i don't think many of them can
do the same things with v6 even if they know about it.  mld doesn't take
the place of that, does it?

Richard Mavrogeanes wrote:
> Flooding in a campus is bad.  Very bad. While one could say "it shouldn't", 
> it does affect PC's, printers, and VLANs that have been carved out for 
> special treatment.   I know of no enterprise/campus network with GigE to 
> every desktop or printer, so I think its a huge issue that will all but 
> prevent IPV6 multicast from going anywhere untill affordable 8, 16, 32 port 
> switches won't flood.  
>  
> Do such things exist?
>  
> For what it's worth, the US DoD pretty much mandates "IPV6", but such 
> mandate does not seem to mandate multicast, so I fear infrastructure 
> vendors won't support MLD snooping.  Do we believe popular switches will be 
> firmware upgradeable to support MLD?
>  
> /rich
>  
>  
>  
> 
>       -----Original Message----- 
>       From: Pekka Savola 
> [mailto:]
>  
>       Sent: Sat 5/20/2006 2:06 PM 
>       To: Richard Mavrogeanes 
>       Cc: Alan Crosswell; 
> 
>  
>       Subject: RE: IPV6 Multicast
>       
>       
> 
>       On Sat, 20 May 2006, Richard Mavrogeanes wrote:
>       > Well, the next release supports IPV6, and perhaps multicast too.
>       >
>       > The trouble/question is local Ethernet switch support ("snooping"
>       > behavior), and I'm hoping someone has some war stories to share.  
> It was
>       > bad enough getting the switch vendors fully onboard with IGMP, and I
>       > wonder where they are with IPV6 multicast.  Obviously, IPV6 is not 
> so
>       > useful if it can't reach the end user (desktop).
>       
>       Well, IPv4 IGMP snooping should NOT block IPv6 multicast.  If it 
> does, the
>       implementation is buggy.
>       
>       However, some network administrators might not appreciate flooding 
> the LAN
>       with v6 multicast either, but with gigabit networks, at least that 
> isn't a
>       big issue for us (which is why we haven't been pushing MLD snooping 
> hard
>       in our CFP's).
>       
>       >       -----Original Message-----
>       >       From: Alan Crosswell 
> [mailto:]
>       >       Sent: Sat 5/20/2006 12:54 PM
>       >       To: Richard Mavrogeanes
>       >       Cc: 
> 
>       >       Subject: Re: IPV6 Multicast
>       >
>       >
>       >
>       >       Abiline and most of the gigapops support it.  There are some 
> issues with
>       >        some international networks not yet support embedded RP.  
> Campuses are
>       >       pretty far behind.  NYU is one of the few that has done v6 
> multicast
>       >       with NYSERNet.  In the first ever v6 multicast hands on 
> workshop in
>       >       Albuquerque a few months ago, we viewed content that was 
> being multicast
>       >       from Syracuse.
>       >
>       >       Put it in a product and I'll have an excuse to replace my 
> Vbrick 1200's:-)
>       >
>       >       /a
>       >
>       >       Richard Mavrogeanes wrote:
>       >       > I'd like to explore this group's experience with IPV6 
> multicast, in particular, what do we believe is the current state of the 
> Internet2 backbone network and what do we think is the state of enterprise 
> routers and switches to allow it?
>       >       >
>       >       > Looking forward to an interesting thread...
>       >       >
>       >       > /rich
>       >       >
>       >
>       >
>       >
>       
>