Talk:Internet Group Management Protocol
|WikiProject Computing / Networking||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
This page appears to be bolted together from bits of RFCs.
- This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English.
They also require acknowledgment. Is this GFDL-compatible?
This license is not GFDL-compatible, or Free at all; it limits the types of derivative works that may be created. Furthermore, many of the RFCs are under a different, even more restrictive license: "Distribution of this memo is unlimited."; that "license" does not allow modification of any kind.
However, I think it should be discussed here. The Anome
All licensing aside, I think it looks horrendous and isn't very reader-friendly. --Fylke
I agree with Fylke: I could just as well read the RFCs. A wikipedia article should provide an overview, not be 2nd level documentation for an RFC. -- Ralph
- It is PNG now and looks reasonable. SVG would be even better. -—Kvng 00:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I have deleted the vast majority of this article on the basis of it being a blatant copyright violation (bolted together RFCs). The RFC license is not GFDL compatible. ed g2s • talk 14:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Surely a description of the IGMP header information and fields isn't copyright?! This info is given my the majority of packet articles (e.g ipv4), so it would be useful to see that info here also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
"The Linux operating system supports IGMP...." and other operating systems??? why is this in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndoeemail (talk • contribs) 02:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Number of Users
- As a matter of original reseach I can report that it is quite widely available. IGMP is implemented in the network stack of all major operating systems. IGMP is widely available in IP routers and IGMP snooping is included in the feature set of most modern managed switches. -—Kvng 00:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Too technical for most readers to understand?
This page has been tagged as being too technical for most readers to understand since March of 2009, but it does not seem too technical to me. Unless someone objects, I am going to wait seven days and then remove the tag. Guy Macon (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Out of curiosity
Does anybody have an idea why firewalling 220.127.116.11 on Windows 7 Pro (using Comodo) should result in inability to log into Windows account if the ethernet cable is connected?
I just wanted to note that I also have IGMP packets going to this ip address, it is windows related. More information can be found via google "igmp 18.104.22.168" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The Packet structure section is incomplete. Before working to clean it up and complete it, I'm interested in a reading from other editors as to whether this level of on-the-wire detail is important for communications protocol articles. -—Kvng 18:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)