Re: mboned: RE: suggestion for simplifying IGMPV3/MLDV2 todiscard EXCLUDEmode

> Hitoshi Asaeda wrote:
>>> I think that the way to do this might be to
>>> create a profile for "IGMPv3 lite" which does not do (S,G) excludes  
>>> for ASM.
>> 
>> Maybe it might be my proposal sent to mboned ML on the 9th of Aug
>> 2005.
>> 
>>> Clearly, as Dave Thaler said at the last IETF, anything that's done  
>>> has to interoperate with
>>> equipment that implement the full IGMPv3. I worry that if nothing is  
>>> done here,
>>> there will emerge a range of partial implementations, which may not  
>>> all interoperate.
>> 
>> Right. It may be possible if we carefully support the interoperation
>> between full version and Lite.
> 
> Yes, it must be done carefully (if we decide to do so, I'm not really
> arguing for change). I'm aware of one partial implementation causing
> some problems already.
> 
> Stig

Yes, if Lite version is considered, it should avoid introducing new problems. 

And as I know, it is much more complex for snooping to support IGMPv3/MLDv2.
 I have heard some complaint from LAN switch engineers.
I think Lite version can do some help.

Cao