Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

wg-multicast - Re: MLD snooping

Subject: All things related to multicast

List archive

Re: MLD snooping


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Frank DiGravina <>
  • To:
  • Subject: Re: MLD snooping
  • Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 11:00:47 -0600

On 1/11/11 9:13 AM, Curtis, Bruce wrote:
On Nov 10, 2010, at 11:07 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:

Who want's to open a TAC case? :-)


Cisco finally opened a bug, here is the ID.


CSCtl51859 IPv6 MLD Snooping Causes Neighbor Discovery to Fail




On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Curtis,
Bruce<>
wrote:
On Nov 8, 2010, at 6:22 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:

We noticed that a recent upgrade on our Catalyst 3560 and 3750s made
it so that MLD broke ND (and thus IPv6). I haven't had time to check
into it more, but we assumed it was a bug and disabled MLD snooping
for now. MLD snooping seemed to work OK in previous releases.

I did some searching a few weeks ago and couldn't find anyone else
talking about the problem. This is the first time I've seen someone
else mention the issue.

Has anyone else seen MLD snooping break ND or is it just a
configuration oversight?
I checked and MLD Snooping wasn't braking ND on our 3750s.

We then upgraded to the latest code on a single 3750 and MLD snooping did
indeed break ND.


On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 2:27 AM, Multicast maillist
<>
wrote:
As per RFC 4541 (Considerations for Internet Group Management Protocol
(IGMP)and Multicast Listener Discovery (MLD) Snooping Switches), it is
inferred that forwarding criteria for all multicast IPv6 address (except
ff02::1) is always based on group database as MLD is mandated for all the
multicast v6 address.

As per this, there is no special consideration for solicited multicast
addresses or multicast addresses used for protocol control traffic.

I feel this could cause issues in protocol adjacency maintenance or DAD
process.

Below is the link discussing about CISCO mld snooping breaking DAD
functionality.

http://networking.itags.org/networking-tech/148011/

OSPFv3 adjacency could break if MLD snooping is enabled on a L2 switch
between two OSPFv3 neighbors. (If the enable configuration happens just
after a MLD query in the network, It would take another 120+ seconds to get
the MLD report for FF02::5. OSPFv3 hello packets will not be forwarded by
the MLD snooping enabled switch till report for FF02::5 is received and
adjacency will break).

There was a draft draft-pashby-magma-simplify-mld-snooping-01.txt stating
that multicast traffic for solicited addresses and control packet reserved
addresses should be forwarded to all ports. But that draft was not taken
forward and has expired.

What is the stand taken by vendors implementing MLD snooping to address the
above issues?

Shouldn’t the MLD snooping enabled switch forward the traffic for solicited
multicast address and protocol control packets to all the ports of VLAN?


Regards,

Magna.


--
Ray Soucy

Epic Communications Specialist

Phone: +1 (207) 561-3526

Networkmaine, a Unit of the University of Maine System
http://www.networkmaine.net/

---
Bruce Curtis

Certified NetAnalyst II 701-231-8527
North Dakota State University





--
Ray Soucy

Epic Communications Specialist

Phone: +1 (207) 561-3526

Networkmaine, a Unit of the University of Maine System
http://www.networkmaine.net/

---
Bruce Curtis

Certified NetAnalyst II 701-231-8527
North Dakota State University




Ray,

The bug id - CSCtl51859 - does not exist according to cisco's
Bug Toolkit. Spelling?


Frank


--
Frank DiGravina
University of Minnesota
Networking& Telecommunications
Network Operations
Phone: 612-626-9074
Cell: 612-386-0449
E-Mail:

Helpline: 612-301-HELP




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page