From owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Sat Apr 1 01:52:24 2000 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [128.125.51.47]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA00200 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 01:52:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA49581 for pim-list; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 22:46:32 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: catarina.usc.edu: majordom set sender to owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu using -f Received: from fsnt.future.futusoft.com ([203.197.140.35]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA49576 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 22:46:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from kailash.future.futsoft.com (unverified) by fsnt.future.futusoft.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id for ; Sat, 01 Apr 2000 12:24:23 +0530 Received: from sabaris.future.futsoft.com (rosario.future.futsoft.com [10.0.2.1]) by kailash.future.futsoft.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id MAA24169 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 12:04:47 +0530 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 12:13:57 +0530 Message-Id: <01BF9BD3.C18B4D80.sabaris@future.futsoft.com> From: sabarivel s To: "'pim@catarina.usc.edu'" Subject: doubt reg swithcing to SPT and back again to shared tree Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 12:13:56 +0530 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit hi , when the data rate exceeds threshold the receiver or RP initiates source specific path. At one period due to bursty nature it might have exceeded . Again if the data rate comes down how to switch back to the shared tree? is this possible? with regards sabari From owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Tue Apr 4 10:24:19 2000 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [128.125.51.47]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04405 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 10:24:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA65558 for pim-list; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 07:14:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: catarina.usc.edu: majordom set sender to owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu using -f Received: from usc.edu (root@usc.edu [128.125.253.136]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA65553 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 07:14:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from red.juniper.net (red.juniper.net [208.197.169.254]) by usc.edu (8.9.3.1/8.9.3/usc) with ESMTP id HAA28266 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 07:14:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from garnet.juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [208.197.169.237]) by red.juniper.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA15395 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 07:10:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from garnet.juniper.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by garnet.juniper.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA84957 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 07:10:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pusateri@garnet.juniper.net) Message-Id: <200004041410.HAA84957@garnet.juniper.net> To: pim@catarina.usc.edu Subject: PIM Working Group Minutes (Adelaide) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <84954.954857441.1@garnet.juniper.net> Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 07:10:41 -0700 From: Tom Pusateri Sender: owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Precedence: bulk Here are some draft minutes from the PIM meeting. Please send me comments in the next few days before I submit them as the official minutes. Thanks, Tom The PIM working group met in Adelaide Australia on March 27th, 2000. The main discussion items centered around Source Specific Multicast (SSM). But first, Isidor Kouvelas talked about open issues with the PIM sparse mode spec. These are summarized at the web page: http://www.aciri.org/fenner/mcast/pim/sm/issues.html A discussion of the spec continued with concerns being raised over implementation dependencies in the spec which clouded the protocol description. The comment was made that even if all of the issues mentioned on the web page were corrected, the spec was still encumbered with the implementation details. Further discussion of the spec was postponed until after the other presentations. Gene Bowen presented the draft http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bhattach-diot-PIMSO-00.txt outlining deployment plans for PIM-SSM within a trial site of Sprint Labs where 200 homes are connected via switched ethernet. Hal Sandick and Isidor Kouvelas both presented drafts on PIM considerations for supporting Source Specific Multicast. Their drafts were complimentary and summarized the issues of handling addresses in the SSM range with PIM. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sandick-pimsm-ssmrules-00.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bhaskar-pim-ss-00.txt Brian Haberman discussed the latest update to PIM for IPv6. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pim-ipv6-03.txt There are no outstanding issues with this document and it is simply waiting on the other PIM documents to advance. We ended the meeting with a discussion about whether to document the PIM SSM rules as a complete protocol spec or an add-on to the existing spec. The concensus was that since their was still concerns with the existing spec, a stand-alone spec would be written. Hugh Holbrook volunteered to author this. It was noted that this new PIM SSM document could be the basis for a new spec. Bill Fenner volunteered to work with Mark Handley and Hugh Holbrook to add the remaining pieces to Hugh's document to create a completely new PIM sparse mode spec that integrated the PIM SSM considerations. Bill and Mark enlisted help from implementors for reviewing of the new document. Other implementors not present at the meeting are highly encouraged to participate in the review or contribute text under the framework developed by Bill, Mark, and Hugh. From owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Tue Apr 4 14:29:32 2000 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [128.125.51.47]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA11546 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 14:29:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA66546 for pim-list; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:21:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: catarina.usc.edu: majordom set sender to owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu using -f Received: from usc.edu (root@usc.edu [128.125.253.136]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA66541 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:21:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from siara.com (netscreen [209.10.58.71] (may be forged)) by usc.edu (8.9.3.1/8.9.3/usc) with ESMTP id LAA26738 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:21:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from yoo-hoo.mtv.siara.com (yoo-hoo.mtv.siara.com [192.168.40.63]) by siara.com (8.9.3-LCCHA/8.9.3/lccha Siara hub 1.4) with ESMTP id LAA11548; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:16:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from lwei@localhost) by yoo-hoo.mtv.siara.com (8.9.3-LCCHA/8.9.3/lccha Siara client 1.6) id LAA18278; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:16:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 11:16:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200004041816.LAA18278@yoo-hoo.mtv.siara.com> From: Liming Wei To: pusateri@juniper.net CC: pim@catarina.usc.edu In-reply-to: <200004041410.HAA84957@garnet.juniper.net> (message from Tom Pusateri on Tue, 04 Apr 2000 07:10:41 -0700) Subject: Re: PIM Working Group Minutes (Adelaide) Reply-to: lwei@redback.com Sender: owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Precedence: bulk > From: Tom Pusateri > > The PIM working group met in Adelaide Australia on March 27th, 2000. > > The main discussion items centered around Source Specific Multicast (SSM). > > But first, Isidor Kouvelas talked about open > issues with the PIM sparse mode spec. These are summarized at the > web page: http://www.aciri.org/fenner/mcast/pim/sm/issues.html > > A discussion of the spec continued with concerns being raised over > implementation dependencies in the spec which clouded the protocol > description. The comment was made that even if all of the issues > mentioned on the web page were corrected, the spec was still > encumbered with the implementation details. Further discussion of > the spec was postponed until after the other presentations. The reason it had so much detail was because the majority of questions raised have been on implementations. Seperating implementation details from the spec might be a good thing in stablizing the spec, but a separate implementation draft would be useful for implementors and for those involved in deployment. I had thought about doing so for a long time but never had time to implement it (and don't think I will in the near future). But if someone volunteers for it, I'd surely be glad to serve as a reviewer. > We ended the meeting with a discussion about whether to document > the PIM SSM rules as a complete protocol spec or an add-on to the > existing spec. The concensus was that since their was still concerns > with the existing spec, a stand-alone spec would be written. Hugh > Holbrook volunteered to author this. I agree this is the better way to do it. > It was noted that this new PIM SSM document could be the basis for > a new spec. Bill Fenner volunteered to > work with Mark Handley and Hugh Holbrook to add > the remaining pieces to Hugh's document to create a completely new > PIM sparse mode spec that integrated the PIM SSM considerations. > Bill and Mark enlisted help from implementors for reviewing of the > new document. Other implementors not present at the meeting are > highly encouraged to participate in the review or contribute text > under the framework developed by Bill, Mark, and Hugh. 1. There are too many documents about SSM today. It will be good if folks can consolidate into one scheme. History has shown that competition among protocol designers generates less beneficial progress than collaborations (as pointed out by Braden et al). Lets see if PIM WG can do better in this round of changes. 2. Yiqun has already started to generate newly formated draft based on the existing draft. But he may not have spent too much time on it yet. It will be good if Bill and company can publish a brief plan of actions, so that other folks at least know if this is a protocol redesign effort, or if it is mainly to generate a better written spec of the existing design, with correctness and ambibuities issues hashed out. This might be clear to folks who went to Australia, but not clear to those who didn't go. If Bill's is a new design, Yiqun will need to continue editing the existing draft, otherwise we should not have two different drafts on the same protocol. 3. As I need to read through all submissions as WG drafts anyway, I can review earlier drafts if needed. And Tom, Thanks for taking the minutes. -Liming From owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Tue Apr 4 17:30:27 2000 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [128.125.51.47]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA17065 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 17:30:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA67490 for pim-list; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 14:16:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: catarina.usc.edu: majordom set sender to owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu using -f Received: from usc.edu (root@usc.edu [128.125.253.136]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA67485 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 14:16:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from backin5.merit.edu (backin5.merit.edu [198.108.60.28]) by usc.edu (8.9.3.1/8.9.3/usc) with ESMTP id OAA06411 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 14:16:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from merit.edu (dhcp60-03.merit.edu [198.108.60.203]) by backin5.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45F1FA9501; Tue, 4 Apr 2000 17:09:36 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <38EA59FC.E6113A19@merit.edu> Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 17:09:16 -0400 From: "Andrew L. Adams" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pim@catarina.usc.edu Subject: prune question Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all. In thinking through the following scenario, I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding the current spec, or if these are wholes in the spec (and I've missed the problem descriptions on the "issues" page). Topology: i2 i1 RP ----- P2 ---- P3 ---- P4 ---- S | R S is a sender to group G. R is a receiver for group G. P3 has interfaces i2 and i1. Actions: 1. P2 joins the RPT for G. 2. Data flows from S to the RP to P2 to R. 3. P2 decides to join the SPT rooted at S. It sends a J/P msg to P3 with RPTbit = 0, and S in the join list. P3 now has the following state. Src Grp SPT RPT iif oiflist S G 0 0 i1 i2 4. P4 now joins the RPT for G. It sends a (*,G) join to P3. P3 now has the following state. Src Grp SPT RPT iif oiflist S G 0 0 i1 i2 * G 0 1 i2 i1 5. Now say that S's data rate drops and P2 decides to switch back to the RPT for G. It sends a J/P message to P3 with RPTbit=0 and S in the prune list. After the oif-deletion delay, P3 has the following state ( according to 3.2.2/Sp in the prune list/1/1 and 1/2). Src Grp SPT RPT iif oiflist S G 0 0 i1 * G 0 1 i2 i1 Question 1 3.2.3/Sp in the prune list/1/2 seems to indicate that the (S,G) state will never go away. Shouldn't the check be something like: If the router has a current (*,G), or (*,*,RP), route entry, and if the existing (Sp,G) entry has its RPT-bit flag set to 1, and _the (*,G) or (*,*,RP) entry has the same iif_, then this (Sp,G)RPT-bit entry is maintained (not deleted) even if its outgoing interface list is null. Question 2 Shouldn't a prune be triggered towards S when the (S,G) oiflist goes null (to remove state on the source tree)? If so, I don't see this in the "Triggered Join/Prune Messages:" section. 3.2.1/Triggered/2/2 indicates what to do when the oif list for an (S,G)RPT-bit goes null. However, there's no mention of a simple (S,G) RPT-bit=0 entry. Thanks for any pointers. -Andy From owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Wed Apr 5 10:38:47 2000 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [128.125.51.47]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA10854 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 10:38:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA70855 for pim-list; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 07:27:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: catarina.usc.edu: majordom set sender to owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu using -f Received: from usc.edu (root@usc.edu [128.125.253.136] (may be forged)) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA70850 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 07:27:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.cluster.oleane.net (smtp1.cluster.oleane.net [195.25.12.16]) by usc.edu (8.9.3.1/8.9.3/usc) with ESMTP id HAA18817 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 07:27:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oleane (dyn-1-1-004.Vin.dialup.oleane.fr [195.25.4.4]) by smtp1.cluster.oleane.net with SMTP id QAA80123; Wed, 5 Apr 2000 16:25:57 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <013b01bf9f0a$359af3e0$0401a8c0@oleane.com> From: "Peter Lewis" To: Subject: IP Based Cellular Networks Conference Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 16:21:05 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0138_01BF9F1A.F13F8060" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0138_01BF9F1A.F13F8060 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable IP Based Cellular Networks Conference.=20 A scientific committe composed of the most eminent experts in this = technology will review the abstracts submitted from the Call For Papers: http://www.upperside.fr/baipcn.htm =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0138_01BF9F1A.F13F8060 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
IP Based Cellular Networks = Conference.=20
A scientific committe composed of = the most=20 eminent experts in this technology will review the abstracts submitted = from the=20 Call For Papers:
http://www.upperside.fr/baipc= n.htm
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0138_01BF9F1A.F13F8060-- From owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Fri Apr 7 15:19:38 2000 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [128.125.51.47]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA15991 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 15:19:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA83146 for pim-list; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 12:13:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: catarina.usc.edu: majordom set sender to owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu using -f Received: from usc.edu (root@usc.edu [128.125.253.136]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA83141 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 12:13:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dfssl.exchange.microsoft.com ([131.107.88.59]) by usc.edu (8.9.3.1/8.9.3/usc) with SMTP id MAA24869 for ; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 12:13:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 127.0.0.1 by dfssl.exchange.microsoft.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Fri, 07 Apr 2000 11:24:19 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time) Received: by dfssl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <2PL5QCT8>; Fri, 7 Apr 2000 11:24:11 -0700 Message-ID: <19398D273324D3118A2B0008C7E9A5690B7835C4@SIT.platinum.corp.microsoft.com> From: Mohit Talwar To: "Andrew L. Adams" Cc: pim@catarina.usc.edu Subject: RE: prune question Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 11:24:01 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Precedence: bulk hi andrew, see below... >Hi all. In thinking through the following scenario, I'm not sure >if I'm misunderstanding the current spec, or if these are wholes >in the spec (and I've missed the problem descriptions on the >"issues" page). > >Topology: > > i2 i1 > RP ----- P2 ---- P3 ---- P4 ---- S > | > R > >S is a sender to group G. >R is a receiver for group G. >P3 has interfaces i2 and i1. > >Actions: > >1. P2 joins the RPT for G. >2. Data flows from S to the RP to P2 to R. >3. P2 decides to join the SPT rooted at S. It sends a J/P msg to > P3 with RPTbit = 0, and S in the join list. P3 now has the > following state. > > Src Grp SPT RPT iif oiflist > S G 0 0 i1 i2 > >4. P4 now joins the RPT for G. It sends a (*,G) join to P3. > P3 now has the following state. > > Src Grp SPT RPT iif oiflist > S G 0 0 i1 i2 > * G 0 1 i2 i1 just for the record... P4, along with the (*,G) join, will also send an (S,G)RPT prune. see 3.2.1/PeriodicJoinPrune/4/3 but this is irrelevant as far as ur questions are concerned. >5. Now say that S's data rate drops and P2 decides to switch back to > the RPT for G. It sends a J/P message to P3 with RPTbit=0 and > S in the prune list. After the oif-deletion delay, P3 has > the following state ( according to 3.2.2/Sp in the prune list/1/1 > and 1/2). > > Src Grp SPT RPT iif oiflist > S G 0 0 i1 > * G 0 1 i2 i1 > >Question 1 >3.2.3/Sp in the prune list/1/2 seems to indicate that the (S,G) >state will never go away. Shouldn't the check be something like: > > If the router has a current (*,G), or (*,*,RP), route > entry, and if the existing (Sp,G) entry has its RPT-bit > flag set to 1, and _the (*,G) or (*,*,RP) entry has the same > iif_, then this (Sp,G)RPT-bit entry is maintained > (not deleted) even if its outgoing interface list is null. 3.2.2/Sp in the prune list/1/2 the exisiting (S,G) state does not have its RPT bit set. so this rule does not apply. also see http://www.aciri.org/fenner/mcast/pim/sm/4.html PIM-SM issue #4: (S,G) state being kept alive by data so this (S,G) state should be expired once its OIL goes to null. >Question 2 >Shouldn't a prune be triggered towards S when the (S,G) oiflist >goes null (to remove state on the source tree)? If so, I don't >see this in the "Triggered Join/Prune Messages:" section. >3.2.1/Triggered/2/2 indicates what to do when the oif list for >an (S,G)RPT-bit goes null. However, there's no mention of a simple >(S,G) RPT-bit=0 entry. i think u r right, this is not listed as a triggering event, but it should be. of course, the secion on periodic joinprunes (3.2.1/3) requires that S be included in the prune list. mohit. From owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Tue Apr 11 07:58:39 2000 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [128.125.51.47]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA29697 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 07:58:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id EAA03029 for pim-list; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 04:50:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: catarina.usc.edu: majordom set sender to owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu using -f Received: from usc.edu (root@usc.edu [128.125.253.136] (may be forged)) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA03024 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 04:50:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ficon-tech.com ([12.10.198.190]) by usc.edu (8.9.3.1/8.9.3/usc) with ESMTP id EAA04229 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 04:50:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ficon-tech.com (capricorn.india.ficon-tech.com [172.25.2.101]) by ficon-tech.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA17888; Tue, 11 Apr 2000 17:17:56 +0530 (IST) (envelope-from sjain@ficon-tech.com) Message-ID: <38F31148.33335275@ficon-tech.com> Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 17:19:28 +0530 From: Shishir Jain Organization: Ficon Technology X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5.1 i86pc) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "sangeeta.mukherjee" CC: comay@jurassic.Eng.Sun.COM, pim@catarina.usc.edu Subject: Re: Is Solaris 2.8 kernel PIM capable? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Sangeeta: We just got Solaris 2.8 for Sparc. We tried running PIM on it, but faced following 2 problems: 1. On receiving a data packet, for which there is no entry in multicast cache, No cache message is generated, an entry in multicast cache is created by PIM, with Oif as Reg Vif, but on receiving a second multicast data packet on which kernel should generate Whole packet, but it panics here with following message: "Apr 11 16:28:16 athena savecore: [ID 570001 auth.error] reboot after panic: BAD TRAP: type=31 rp=2a10060adc0 addr=0 mmu_fsr=0 occurred in module "ip" due to a NULL pointer dereference" 2. On receiving a data packet on an Oif, kernel should generate Wrong Vif message, which it never generates. Is this some problem with kernel? Has anyone else run or tested PIM-SM on Solaris 2.8 Please do let us know at the earliest. Thanks & Regards Shishir Jain "sangeeta.mukherjee" wrote: > > Solaris 8 FCS is PIM capable. THe necessary defines are in > netinet/pim.h > > However Solaris 8 FCS does not include the PIM daemon. Please > obtain it from ISI' PIM website. > > Sangeeta > > > > > Hello David, > > > > We just got Solaris 2.8 Early Access for Sparc. At first look at the > > header file ip_mroute.h, it seems no new changes have been done to > > support PIM. > > > > Is there a separate patch for PIM for Solaris 2.8 or is it planned to be > > released later? Please do let me know its current status of > > availability. > > > > Thanks & Regards > > > > Shishir > > > > David Comay wrote: > > > > > > Solaris 2.6 and its kernel are not currently able to support PIM. > > > However, Solaris 8 will have kernel support and you should be able to > > > run the standalone daemons referenced off > > > > > > http://catarina.usc.edu/pim/ > > > > > > under Solaris 8 which is available via early access from > > > > > > http://www.sun.com/developers/tools/solaris/ > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > dsc > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Shishir Jain wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hello! > > > > > > > > We are looking at implementing PIM-SM protocol on Solaris 2.6 sparc. > > > > > > > > The question I have is: > > > > > > > > Is Solaris 2.6 kernel completely capable to support PIM and has all the > > > > required interfaces? I was looking at pimd implementation publicly > > > > available and found few differences in netinet/ip_mroute.h and here are > > > > few differences like: > > > > > > > > - VIFF_REGISTER flag for vif structure is not defined on Solaris 2.6 > > > > - IGMPMSG_WHOLEPKT is not defined on Solaris 2.6 > > > > > > > > Can these things be accomplished other ways, or, some patches are > > > > available for PIM support somewhere for Solaris 2.6? > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance for the help. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Shishir > > > > -- > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Shishir Jain > > > > Ficon Technology > > > > E-mail: mailto:sjain@ficon-tech.com > > > > Web: http://www.ficon-tech.com > > > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Shishir Jain > > Ficon Technology > > E-mail: mailto:sjain@ficon-tech.com > > Web: http://www.ficon-tech.com -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shishir Jain Ficon Technology E-mail: mailto:sjain@ficon-tech.com Web: http://www.ficon-tech.com From owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Mon Apr 17 04:30:32 2000 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [128.125.51.47]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA27574 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 04:30:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA31283 for pim-list; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 01:24:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: catarina.usc.edu: majordom set sender to owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu using -f Received: from usc.edu (root@usc.edu [128.125.253.136]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA31278 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 01:24:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fsnt.future.futusoft.com ([203.197.140.35]) by usc.edu (8.9.3.1/8.9.3/usc) with ESMTP id BAA02710 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 01:21:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kailash.future.futsoft.com (unverified) by fsnt.future.futusoft.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 13:55:12 +0530 Received: from subraln ([10.0.14.16]) by kailash.future.futsoft.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id NAA24938 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 13:33:26 +0530 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 13:43:27 +0530 Message-Id: <01BFA872.E8BB7280.subraln@future.futsoft.com> From: Subramanian L N Reply-To: "subraln@future.futsoft.com" To: "'pim@catarina.usc.edu'" Subject: About (*,*,RP) entries. Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 13:43:25 +0530 Organization: Future Software X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, (*, *, RP) entry in routers is created by the initiation of PMBR. Can there be several (*, *, RP) entries in a router. If there are several (*, *, RP) entries , then how this (*, *, RP) entry is different from (*, G) entry in the router (having same RP Address). Am I right or have I got it wrong? Regards, Subramanian From owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Tue Apr 18 02:38:34 2000 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [128.125.51.47]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA28572 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 02:38:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA36528 for pim-list; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 23:26:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: catarina.usc.edu: majordom set sender to owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu using -f Received: from usc.edu (root@usc.edu [128.125.253.136]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA36523 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 23:26:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fsnt.future.futusoft.com ([203.197.140.35]) by usc.edu (8.9.3.1/8.9.3/usc) with ESMTP id XAA18887 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 23:25:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kailash.future.futsoft.com (unverified) by fsnt.future.futusoft.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:03:10 +0530 Received: from subraln ([10.0.14.16]) by kailash.future.futsoft.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id LAA12682 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 11:41:24 +0530 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 11:50:53 +0530 Message-Id: <01BFA92C.59666080.subraln@future.futsoft.com> From: Subramanian L N Reply-To: "subraln@future.futsoft.com" To: "'pim@catarina.usc.edu'" Subject: About (*,*,RP) entries Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 11:50:52 +0530 Organization: Future Software X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, How does a PMBR originate a (*,* RP) Join? How many (*,*,RP) entries are created in the PMBR?. Pl help me in the folowing scenario. The following states exist in a router type of Entry Group Addr RP Address iif oif (*,G1) 235.10.2.1 10.0.14.192 1 2 (*,*, RP) 224.0.0.0 10.0.14.192 1 2,3 Suppose if the router receives a data packet with Mcast Grp Addr = 236.10.12.5. How the packet's Grp Address is "matched" with the entries present? There can be two possibilities. From RP-set table in the router, 1) RP for G (236.10.2.5) can be same as RP address in (*,*, RP) entry. 2) RP for G (236.10.2.5) can be different from RP address in (*, *, RP) entry. Is the packet forwarded in both the conditions? Looking forward to ur replies , Regards, Subramanian. From owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Tue Apr 18 13:46:14 2000 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [128.125.51.47]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA08985 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 13:46:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA38739 for pim-list; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 10:35:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: catarina.usc.edu: majordom set sender to owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu using -f Received: from usc.edu (root@usc.edu [128.125.253.136]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA38734 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 10:35:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eng.ie.cuhk.edu.hk (eng.ie.cuhk.edu.hk [137.189.96.20]) by usc.edu (8.9.3.1/8.9.3/usc) with ESMTP id KAA04397 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 10:35:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from iesun63.ie.cuhk.edu.hk (iesun63 [137.189.99.113]) by eng.ie.cuhk.edu.hk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA13503 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 01:32:07 +0800 (HKT) Received: from localhost by iesun63.ie.cuhk.edu.hk (8.9.3+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id BAA02313; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 01:32:06 +0800 (HKT) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 01:32:06 +0800 (HKT) From: chan kwok hing X-Sender: khchan8@iesun63 To: pim@catarina.usc.edu Subject: PIM-SM Join Latency Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Precedence: bulk Dear all, I am a final year undergraduate student of The Chinese University of Hong Kong, who is studying multicast routing algorithm as my final year project. Since I have downloaded and installed the pimd-2.1.0-alpha26 to a Linux PC, and I have used MGEN to test the performance of PIM Sparse Mode routing and the description is as follows : Using a PC installed pimd as router with 2 ethernet cards connecting to 2 VLAN, and in each VLAN there is one Linux PC installed MGEN, one is to send packets and the other one receives packets. The MGEN software will generate report about join latency, packets received, packets loss, etc. In the test, packet sending rate is 1500 packet per second where each packet is 100 bytes. (1.2 Mbps) Since I use MGEN to do many performance evaluation, the result is as follows : Join Latency : ~0.6 seconds to ~10.3 seconds Packet loss : 8 to 15 packets The join latency varied within about 1.7 seconds to 9.3 seconds. The variation is so large that I wonder that the problem is due to PIM implementation, IGMP implementation or the PIM algorithm has such disadvantage. I am looking forward to kindly reply. Your help will be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much. Regards, Chan Kwok Hing From owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Tue Apr 18 15:38:49 2000 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [128.125.51.47]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA10922 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 15:38:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA39425 for pim-list; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:32:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: catarina.usc.edu: majordom set sender to owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu using -f Received: from usc.edu (root@usc.edu [128.125.253.136] (may be forged)) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA39420 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:32:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from griffin.aciri.org (griffin.aciri.org [192.150.187.12]) by usc.edu (8.9.3.1/8.9.3/usc) with ESMTP id MAA22613 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:31:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hetnet.nl (localhost.aciri.org [127.0.0.1]) by griffin.aciri.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA32256; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:29:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wilbertdg@hetnet.nl) Message-ID: <38FCB7B5.7A62ECCB@hetnet.nl> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:29:58 -0700 From: Wilbert de Graaf X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.36 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: chan kwok hing CC: pim@catarina.usc.edu Subject: Re: PIM-SM Join Latency References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Chan, To start with thanks for the tip of MGEN. Dididn't know this application. I'm working on a IGMPv3 implementation myself, and it might be interested to do the same for the adaption of multicast source filters. Telling whether it's IGMP could be done using a packet trace on the client. You could detrmine how long it takes before the IGMPv2 leave report is transmitted after the last member-socket dropped membership. The source code of linux (http://lxr.linux.no/source/net/ipv4/igmp.c) seems to send the report right away so you shoudl be able to see that. Then of course there could be a delay within pimd, and you could change the source to log the events (when pimd received a leave report, and removed the outgoing interface list of the (S,G). Then, of course From owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Tue Apr 18 18:29:06 2000 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [128.125.51.47]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA13368 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 18:29:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA40320 for pim-list; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 15:15:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: catarina.usc.edu: majordom set sender to owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu using -f Received: from rumi.usc.edu (rumi.usc.edu [128.125.51.41]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA40315; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 15:15:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rumi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rumi.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA69061; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 15:15:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200004182215.PAA69061@rumi.usc.edu> To: chan kwok hing cc: pim@catarina.usc.edu Subject: Re: PIM-SM Join Latency In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 19 Apr 2000 01:32:06 +0800." Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 15:15:50 -0700 From: Pavlin Ivanov Radoslavov Sender: owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Precedence: bulk > I am a final year undergraduate student of The Chinese University > of Hong Kong, who is studying multicast routing algorithm as my final year > project. Since I have downloaded and installed the pimd-2.1.0-alpha26 to a > Linux PC, and I have used MGEN to test the performance of PIM Sparse Mode > routing and the description is as follows : > > Using a PC installed pimd as router with 2 ethernet cards > connecting to 2 VLAN, and in each VLAN there is one Linux PC installed > MGEN, one is to send packets and the other one receives packets. The MGEN > software will generate report about join latency, packets received, > packets loss, etc. In the test, packet sending rate is 1500 packet per > second where each packet is 100 bytes. (1.2 Mbps) > > Since I use MGEN to do many performance evaluation, the result is > as follows : > > Join Latency : ~0.6 seconds to ~10.3 seconds > Packet loss : 8 to 15 packets > > The join latency varied within about 1.7 seconds to 9.3 seconds. > The variation is so large that I wonder that the problem is due to PIM > implementation, IGMP implementation or the PIM algorithm has such > disadvantage. Chan, In some special cases PIM-SM protocol itself may introduce long latency between the time a receiver join and the time it receives the first packet: - If the group doesn't have receivers yet, but the sender is active, the RP will send RegisterStop to the DR - After the first receiver joins the group, it will get the data only after the RegisterStop state in the DR expires (from the top of my head, of the order of up to 10-30 seconds?) - The receivers that join later should not see any latency. In your case however, I don't think this is the reason, because you have just a single router, and there is no RegisterStop sent internally from/to the same router. For Join latency I doubt it is IGMP problem, unless there is bug in the Linux kernel implementation (IGMP may account for the Leave latency, but this is different). My guess is that the reason is in the pimd implementation. Indeed, although most of the events are scheduled through a periodic timer of 5 seconds, I think that some events like Join are scheduled immediately, so there is no good explanation why sometimes you see the 10s latency. Going through detailed log of events should help you point the problem. Regards, Pavlin From owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Wed Apr 19 00:10:18 2000 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [128.125.51.47]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA18832 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 00:10:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA41620 for pim-list; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 21:02:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: catarina.usc.edu: majordom set sender to owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu using -f Received: from usc.edu (root@usc.edu [128.125.253.136] (may be forged)) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA41615 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 21:02:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eng.ie.cuhk.edu.hk (eng.ie.cuhk.edu.hk [137.189.96.20]) by usc.edu (8.9.3.1/8.9.3/usc) with ESMTP id VAA00235 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 21:02:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from iesun59.ie.cuhk.edu.hk (iesun59 [137.189.99.109]) by eng.ie.cuhk.edu.hk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA06413; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 11:59:03 +0800 (HKT) Received: from localhost by iesun59.ie.cuhk.edu.hk (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id LAA03133; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 11:59:02 +0800 (HKT) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 11:59:02 +0800 (HKT) From: chan kwok hing X-Sender: khchan8@iesun59 To: Wilbert de Graaf cc: pim@catarina.usc.edu Subject: Re: PIM-SM Join Latency In-Reply-To: <38FCB7B5.7A62ECCB@hetnet.nl> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Precedence: bulk Dear all, Thank you for Graff's reply. Since the pimd program use dedicated igmp.c and igmpv2.h, not the linux one (http://lxr.linux.no/source/net/ipv4/igmp.c), will it affect the situation? Also, I have changed some parameter in igmpv2.h like IGMP_QUERY_INTERVAL, IGMP_QUERY_RESPONSE_INTERVAL, IGMP_STARTUP_QUERY_INTERVAL, etc. the performance looks a little better, the join latency varies between 1.1 seconds to 9 seconds, but it seems not reasonable. Looking forward to kindly reply. Thank you very much. Regards, Chan Kwok Hing On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Wilbert de Graaf wrote: > > Hi Chan, > > To start with thanks for the tip of MGEN. Dididn't know this application. I'm > working on a IGMPv3 implementation myself, and it might be interested to do the > same for the adaption of multicast source filters. > > Telling whether it's IGMP could be done using a packet trace on the client. You > could detrmine how long it takes before the IGMPv2 leave report is transmitted > after the last member-socket dropped membership. The source code of linux > (http://lxr.linux.no/source/net/ipv4/igmp.c) seems to send the report right > away so you shoudl be able to see that. > Then of course there could be a delay within pimd, and you could change the > source to log the events (when pimd received a leave report, and removed the > outgoing interface list of the (S,G). > > Then, of course > > > From owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Wed Apr 19 01:36:00 2000 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [128.125.51.47]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA23248 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 01:35:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA42175 for pim-list; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 22:28:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: catarina.usc.edu: majordom set sender to owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu using -f Received: from usc.edu (root@usc.edu [128.125.253.136] (may be forged)) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA42170 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 22:28:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hetnet.nl (net015s.hetnet.nl [194.151.104.155]) by usc.edu (8.9.3.1/8.9.3/usc) with ESMTP id WAA15660 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 22:28:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pecan ([63.202.81.47]) by hetnet.nl with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.387.38); Wed, 19 Apr 2000 07:26:44 +0200 Message-ID: <001a01bfa9c7$d47b4e20$2f51ca3f@icsi.berkeley.edu> From: "Wilbert de Graaf" To: "chan kwok hing" Cc: References: Subject: Re: PIM-SM Join Latency Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 23:23:49 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Chan, IGMP is a (asymmetric) host-router protocol, so both router and host have their own characteristics concerning behaviour (pimd is the igmp querier, while linux's igmp.c is the reporter), timers and so on. For that reason pimd brings it's own implementation. But you shouldn't change those defines in the headers since most of these are part of the protocol specs. It's just that it sometimes helps to put logs in the sources when troubleshooting a protocol, so you can make sure what exactly is going on. - Wilbert ----- Original Message ----- From: chan kwok hing To: Wilbert de Graaf Cc: Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 8:59 PM Subject: Re: PIM-SM Join Latency > Dear all, > > Thank you for Graff's reply. > > Since the pimd program use dedicated igmp.c and igmpv2.h, not the > linux one (http://lxr.linux.no/source/net/ipv4/igmp.c), will it affect the > situation? Also, I have changed some parameter in igmpv2.h like > IGMP_QUERY_INTERVAL, IGMP_QUERY_RESPONSE_INTERVAL, > IGMP_STARTUP_QUERY_INTERVAL, etc. the performance looks a little better, > the join latency varies between 1.1 seconds to 9 seconds, but it seems not > reasonable. Looking forward to kindly reply. Thank you very much. > > > > Regards, > Chan Kwok Hing > > > On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Wilbert de Graaf wrote: > > > > > Hi Chan, > > > > To start with thanks for the tip of MGEN. Dididn't know this application. I'm > > working on a IGMPv3 implementation myself, and it might be interested to do the > > same for the adaption of multicast source filters. > > > > Telling whether it's IGMP could be done using a packet trace on the client. You > > could detrmine how long it takes before the IGMPv2 leave report is transmitted > > after the last member-socket dropped membership. The source code of linux > > (http://lxr.linux.no/source/net/ipv4/igmp.c) seems to send the report right > > away so you shoudl be able to see that. > > Then of course there could be a delay within pimd, and you could change the > > source to log the events (when pimd received a leave report, and removed the > > outgoing interface list of the (S,G). > > > > Then, of course > > > > > > > From owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Wed Apr 19 04:47:51 2000 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [128.125.51.47]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA01894 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 04:47:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id BAA42944 for pim-list; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 01:39:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: catarina.usc.edu: majordom set sender to owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu using -f Received: from usc.edu (root@usc.edu [128.125.253.136]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA42939 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 01:39:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eng.ie.cuhk.edu.hk (eng.ie.cuhk.edu.hk [137.189.96.20]) by usc.edu (8.9.3.1/8.9.3/usc) with ESMTP id BAA13119 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 01:39:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from iesun59.ie.cuhk.edu.hk (iesun59 [137.189.99.109]) by eng.ie.cuhk.edu.hk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA20492; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 16:38:07 +0800 (HKT) Received: from localhost by iesun59.ie.cuhk.edu.hk (8.8.8+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id QAA04950; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 16:38:07 +0800 (HKT) Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 16:38:07 +0800 (HKT) From: chan kwok hing X-Sender: khchan8@iesun59 To: Wilbert de Graaf cc: pim@catarina.usc.edu, kcchan9@ie.cuhk.edu.hk Subject: Re: PIM-SM Join Latency In-Reply-To: <001a01bfa9c7$d47b4e20$2f51ca3f@icsi.berkeley.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Precedence: bulk Dear all, Thank you for Pavlin's reply. Since we have tested on a Cisco 7500 using PIM-SM and MGEN, the join latency varies between 0.025 secondes to 0.9 seconds, so what is the main factor for this variation? Also, we have downloaded the pimdd, but it has error message that it has not the "pim.h" file when i compile with makefile. So can anyone tell me how to solve it? Thank you very much. Regards, Chan Kwok Hing On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Wilbert de Graaf wrote: > Hi Chan, > > IGMP is a (asymmetric) host-router protocol, so both router and host have > their own characteristics concerning behaviour (pimd is the igmp querier, > while linux's igmp.c is the reporter), timers and so on. For that reason > pimd brings it's own implementation. > > But you shouldn't change those defines in the headers since most of these > are part of the protocol specs. > > It's just that it sometimes helps to put logs in the sources when > troubleshooting a protocol, so you can make sure what exactly is going on. > > - Wilbert > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: chan kwok hing > To: Wilbert de Graaf > Cc: > Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 8:59 PM > Subject: Re: PIM-SM Join Latency > > > > Dear all, > > > > Thank you for Graff's reply. > > > > Since the pimd program use dedicated igmp.c and igmpv2.h, not the > > linux one (http://lxr.linux.no/source/net/ipv4/igmp.c), will it affect the > > situation? Also, I have changed some parameter in igmpv2.h like > > IGMP_QUERY_INTERVAL, IGMP_QUERY_RESPONSE_INTERVAL, > > IGMP_STARTUP_QUERY_INTERVAL, etc. the performance looks a little better, > > the join latency varies between 1.1 seconds to 9 seconds, but it seems not > > reasonable. Looking forward to kindly reply. Thank you very much. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > Chan Kwok Hing > > > > > > On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Wilbert de Graaf wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Chan, > > > > > > To start with thanks for the tip of MGEN. Dididn't know this > application. I'm > > > working on a IGMPv3 implementation myself, and it might be interested to > do the > > > same for the adaption of multicast source filters. > > > > > > Telling whether it's IGMP could be done using a packet trace on the > client. You > > > could detrmine how long it takes before the IGMPv2 leave report is > transmitted > > > after the last member-socket dropped membership. The source code of > linux > > > (http://lxr.linux.no/source/net/ipv4/igmp.c) seems to send the report > right > > > away so you shoudl be able to see that. > > > Then of course there could be a delay within pimd, and you could change > the > > > source to log the events (when pimd received a leave report, and removed > the > > > outgoing interface list of the (S,G). > > > > > > Then, of course > > > > > > > > > > > > > From owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Wed Apr 19 12:51:06 2000 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [128.125.51.47]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA09897 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 12:51:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA44723 for pim-list; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 09:45:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: catarina.usc.edu: majordom set sender to owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu using -f Received: from usc.edu (root@usc.edu [128.125.253.136] (may be forged)) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA44717; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 09:45:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eng.ie.cuhk.edu.hk (eng.ie.cuhk.edu.hk [137.189.96.20]) by usc.edu (8.9.3.1/8.9.3/usc) with ESMTP id JAA25178; Wed, 19 Apr 2000 09:45:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from iesun63.ie.cuhk.edu.hk (iesun63 [137.189.99.113]) by eng.ie.cuhk.edu.hk (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA12674; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 00:43:41 +0800 (HKT) Received: from localhost by iesun63.ie.cuhk.edu.hk (8.9.3+Sun/SMI-SVR4) id AAA03663; Thu, 20 Apr 2000 00:43:41 +0800 (HKT) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 00:43:41 +0800 (HKT) From: chan kwok hing X-Sender: khchan8@iesun63 To: Pavlin Ivanov Radoslavov cc: pim@catarina.usc.edu, chan kwun chung Subject: Re: PIM-SM Join Latency In-Reply-To: <200004191023.DAA72461@rumi.usc.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Precedence: bulk Dear all, Thank you for Pavlin's help. Since I have modified the PIM-DM program to be able to run on Linux, the performance is very good, the join latency varies between 0.1 second to 0.9 second, and no packet loss! However, it makes me suspect that the PIM implementation has the problem resulting bad performance. Can anyone tell me that is this still a problem in pimd-2.1.0-alpha28 PIM-SM program? (Since I am using pimd-2.1.0-alpha26) According to the PIM-SM algorithm, for this situation (one router and 2 subnetwork, RP = DR), client join group should not have such great delay. Please correct me if I am wrong. And please tell me that does the program handle this situation? Thank you very much! Regards, Chan Kwok Hing On Wed, 19 Apr 2000, Pavlin Ivanov Radoslavov wrote: > > Since we have tested on a Cisco 7500 using PIM-SM and MGEN, the > > join latency varies between 0.025 secondes to 0.9 seconds, so what is the > > main factor for this variation? > > I think that the absolute value of this latency (< 1s) is small > enough, so I don't think this variation really matters. > > > Also, we have downloaded the pimdd, but it has error message that > > it has not the "pim.h" file when i compile with makefile. So can anyone > > tell me how to solve it? > > I think that pimdd has a directory "include" that contains > subdirectories for different platforms. Unfortunately, there is no > linux directory there. You can either adapt pim.h from the freebsd > directory, or you can use the include/linux directory from pimd (but > you need to edit the Makefile and add -Iinclude/linux to CFLAGS). > > Pavlin > > > > > > Thank you very much. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > Chan Kwok Hing > > > > > > > > On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Wilbert de Graaf wrote: > > > > > Hi Chan, > > > > > > IGMP is a (asymmetric) host-router protocol, so both router and host have > > > their own characteristics concerning behaviour (pimd is the igmp querier, > > > while linux's igmp.c is the reporter), timers and so on. For that reason > > > pimd brings it's own implementation. > > > > > > But you shouldn't change those defines in the headers since most of these > > > are part of the protocol specs. > > > > > > It's just that it sometimes helps to put logs in the sources when > > > troubleshooting a protocol, so you can make sure what exactly is going on. > > > > > > - Wilbert > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: chan kwok hing > > > To: Wilbert de Graaf > > > Cc: > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 8:59 PM > > > Subject: Re: PIM-SM Join Latency > > > > > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > > > > > Thank you for Graff's reply. > > > > > > > > Since the pimd program use dedicated igmp.c and igmpv2.h, not the > > > > linux one (http://lxr.linux.no/source/net/ipv4/igmp.c), will it affect the > > > > situation? Also, I have changed some parameter in igmpv2.h like > > > > IGMP_QUERY_INTERVAL, IGMP_QUERY_RESPONSE_INTERVAL, > > > > IGMP_STARTUP_QUERY_INTERVAL, etc. the performance looks a little better, > > > > the join latency varies between 1.1 seconds to 9 seconds, but it seems not > > > > reasonable. Looking forward to kindly reply. Thank you very much. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Chan Kwok Hing > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Wilbert de Graaf wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Chan, > > > > > > > > > > To start with thanks for the tip of MGEN. Dididn't know this > > > application. I'm > > > > > working on a IGMPv3 implementation myself, and it might be interested to > > > do the > > > > > same for the adaption of multicast source filters. > > > > > > > > > > Telling whether it's IGMP could be done using a packet trace on the > > > client. You > > > > > could detrmine how long it takes before the IGMPv2 leave report is > > > transmitted > > > > > after the last member-socket dropped membership. The source code of > > > linux > > > > > (http://lxr.linux.no/source/net/ipv4/igmp.c) seems to send the report > > > right > > > > > away so you shoudl be able to see that. > > > > > Then of course there could be a delay within pimd, and you could change > > > the > > > > > source to log the events (when pimd received a leave report, and removed > > > the > > > > > outgoing interface list of the (S,G). > > > > > > > > > > Then, of course > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Tue Apr 25 00:46:31 2000 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [128.125.51.47]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA24012 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 00:46:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA73071 for pim-list; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 21:40:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: catarina.usc.edu: majordom set sender to owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu using -f Received: from usc.edu (root@usc.edu [128.125.253.136]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA73066 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 21:40:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail01hq.activate.net ([12.18.154.254]) by usc.edu (8.9.3.1/8.9.3/usc) with ESMTP id VAA16593 for ; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 21:40:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by MAIL01HQ with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 21:37:31 -0700 Message-ID: From: Don Estberg To: "'holbrook@cisco.com '" , "'holbrook@dsg.stanford.edu '" , "'cheriton@dsg.standford.edu '" Cc: "'pim@catarina.usc.edu '" Subject: EXPRESS Evolution Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 21:37:22 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Precedence: bulk Hugh and David, To what extent has your proposal for EXPRESS at SIGCOMM '99 encouraged/evolved into PIM-SO and PIM-SS, which are described in current IETF drafts? Also, since these drafts only deal with the part of the EXPRESS proposal dealing with the simplification of multicast when there is only one source, are there any efforts to define protocols that have the other EXPRESS features such as subscriber counts and subscription? I am Sr. Architect for Activate.net, which sells services for streaming media distribution over the Internet; having multicast available over the Internet would be of great benefit to us. I'm asking the above questions because last November I proposed giving a talk at the MultiMediaCom2000 in June suggesting how multicast needed to change to make it more useful for streaming media broadcasting; at that time I didn't know about your EXPRESS proposal or the discussions at the November IETF meeting, but at a high level I was proposing 80% of your objectives for EXPRESS. Now I'm trying to figure out how to give a talk at MultiMediaCom that will still express our company's need for multicast to evolve, but take into account how much it has evolved. I'd appreciate any suggestions, or source documents that I am not aware of. Thanks Don Estberg From owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Tue Apr 25 22:51:47 2000 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [128.125.51.47]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA05163 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 22:51:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA79350 for pim-list; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 19:43:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: catarina.usc.edu: majordom set sender to owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu using -f Received: from usc.edu (root@usc.edu [128.125.253.136] (may be forged)) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA79345 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 19:43:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-msg-core-2.cisco.com (sj-msg-core-2.cisco.com [171.69.43.88]) by usc.edu (8.9.3.1/8.9.3/usc) with ESMTP id TAA04038 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 19:43:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scorpion.cisco.com (scorpion-hme0.cisco.com [171.69.198.67]) by sj-msg-core-2.cisco.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA10856; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 19:37:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: (holbrook@localhost) by scorpion.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.2-SunOS.5.5.1.sun4/CISCO.WS.1.2) id TAA23205; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 19:37:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 19:37:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200004260237.TAA23205@scorpion.cisco.com> From: Hugh Holbrook To: maddogs@ietf.org, mboned@network-services.uoregon.edu, pim@catarina.usc.edu, idmr@cs.ucl.ac.uk, routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: ssm-interest mailing list created Sender: owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Precedence: bulk Hello, multicast folks. As promised in Adelaide, I've created a mailing list for IETF discussions of source-specific multicast (SSM). This list will likely serve as the initial working group list if an SSM working group is created. To send mail to the entire list (not administrative requests), use ssm-interest@external.cisco.com Subscribe or unsubscribe yourself by sending mail to mailer@cisco.com with a majordomo command in the body of the email. Commands include: subscribe ssm-interest unsubscribe ssm-interest info ssm-interest help If you'd like more information about SSM, see the following drafts: draft-holbrook-ssm-00.txt draft-bhaskar-pim-ss-00.txt draft-bhattach-diot-PIMSO-00.txt draft-sandick-pimsm-ssmrules-00.txt draft-shepherd-ssm232-00.txt and these two related IGMPv3 drafts: draft-ietf-idmr-igmp-v3-03.txt draft-ietf-idmr-msf-api-00.txt -Hugh Apologies for the duplicate copies. From owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Thu Apr 27 13:07:30 2000 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [128.125.51.47]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA03944 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 13:07:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA04890 for pim-list; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 09:55:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: catarina.usc.edu: majordom set sender to owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu using -f Received: from usc.edu (root@usc.edu [128.125.253.136]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA04885 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 09:55:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hotmail.com (oe35.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.236.30]) by usc.edu (8.9.3.1/8.9.3/usc) with SMTP id JAA27422 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 09:55:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 66579 invoked by uid 65534); 27 Apr 2000 16:55:01 -0000 Message-ID: <20000427165501.66578.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Originating-IP: [204.31.186.240] From: "Chris Hall" To: Subject: PIM packet captures Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 10:00:01 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_003A_01BFB02F.5A8CED80" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_003A_01BFB02F.5A8CED80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi All- I am in the process of developing a PIM-SMv2 application. I lack = the facilities currently to construct my own private PIM-SM domain and I = was wondering if anyone out there had some Netmon or NetXray captures of = PIM exchanges that they could e-mail to me. =20 Thanks for any help you can give- Chris Hall ------=_NextPart_000_003A_01BFB02F.5A8CED80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi All-
    I am in the process of = developing a=20 PIM-SMv2 application.  I lack the facilities currently to construct = my own=20 private PIM-SM domain and I was wondering if anyone out there had some = Netmon or=20 NetXray captures of PIM exchanges that they could e-mail to me. =20
Thanks for any help you can give-
Chris = Hall
------=_NextPart_000_003A_01BFB02F.5A8CED80-- From owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Thu Apr 27 14:47:45 2000 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [128.125.51.47]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA05265 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 14:47:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA05471 for pim-list; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 11:41:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: catarina.usc.edu: majordom set sender to owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu using -f Received: from usc.edu (root@usc.edu [128.125.253.136]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA05466 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 11:41:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dfssl.exchange.microsoft.com ([131.107.88.59]) by usc.edu (8.9.3.1/8.9.3/usc) with SMTP id LAA01390 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 11:41:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.30.236.11 by dfssl.exchange.microsoft.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Thu, 27 Apr 2000 10:41:21 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time) Received: from SIT.platinum.corp.microsoft.com ([172.30.236.233]) by yuri.dns.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2172.1); Thu, 27 Apr 2000 10:47:17 -0700 content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: can u ssend me Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 10:41:41 -0700 Message-ID: <19398D273324D3118A2B0008C7E9A5690C6C1DE9@SIT.platinum.corp.microsoft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BFB06F.D8E29690" Thread-Topic: can u ssend me Thread-Index: Ab+wbvoEHyUJrq6ZSjKWHvGmRs51NgAASkMw X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4344.0 From: "Mohit Talwar" To: "Priyank Desai" Cc: "pim (E-mail)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Apr 2000 17:47:17.0054 (UTC) FILETIME=[A0D0FDE0:01BFB070] Sender: owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFB06F.D8E29690 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable OF COURSE, but these are very sensitive issues,=20 if u want to sort out some protocol processing issue send mail to pim@catarina.usc.edu =20 but we could always talk =20 mohit. -----Original Message----- From: Priyank Desai [mailto:Priyank.Desai@windriver.com] Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2000 10:49 AM To: Mohit Talwar Subject: RE: can u ssend me aaare, muje code copy nahi karna. there is just a small confusion as=20 to processing the joinprune message. wohi dekhna tha =20 anyways, =20 Thanks, =20 ttu, p -----Original Message----- From: Mohit Talwar [mailto:mohitt@Exchange.Microsoft.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 2:05 PM To: Priyank Desai Subject: RE: can u ssend me abey gadhe, marvayega :)))=20 http://www.gated.org =20 try gated, they have a public pim implementation=20 but there will certainly be some copyright issues=20 check with ur company lawyers.=20 >-----Original Message-----=20 >From: Priyank Desai [ mailto:Priyank.Desai@windriver.com ]=20 >Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 1:45 PM=20 >To: Mohit Talwar=20 >Subject: can u ssend me=20 >=20 >=20 >pim_joinprune_message.c and .h files=20 >I mean the processing part and creation/deletion part.=20 >=20 >=20 >Thanks.=20 >Priyank=20 >=20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFB06F.D8E29690 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: can u ssend me
OF=20 COURSE,
but=20 these are very sensitive issues,
if u=20 want to sort out some protocol processing issue
send=20 mail to pim@catarina.usc.edu
but we=20 could always talk
 
mohit.
-----Original Message-----
From: Priyank Desai=20 [mailto:Priyank.Desai@windriver.com]
Sent: Thursday, April = 27, 2000=20 10:49 AM
To: Mohit Talwar
Subject: RE: can u ssend = me

aaare, muje code copy nahi karna. there is = just a=20 small confusion as
to=20 processing the joinprune message. wohi dekhna tha
 
anyways,
 
Thanks,
 
ttu,
p
-----Original Message-----
From: Mohit Talwar=20 [mailto:mohitt@Exchange.Microsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, = April 26,=20 2000 2:05 PM
To: Priyank Desai
Subject: RE: can = u ssend=20 me

abey gadhe, marvayega :)))

http://www.gated.org

try gated, they have a public pim = implementation=20
but there will certainly be some copyright = issues=20
check with ur company lawyers.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Priyank Desai [mailto:Priyank.Desai@windrive= r.com]=20
>Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 1:45 = PM=20
>To: Mohit Talwar
>Subject:=20 can u ssend me
>
>
>pim_joinprune_message.c = and .h=20 files
>I mean the processing part and=20 creation/deletion part.
> =
>
>Thanks.
>Priyank
>=20

------_=_NextPart_001_01BFB06F.D8E29690-- From owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Thu Apr 27 16:37:34 2000 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [128.125.51.47]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06369 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 16:37:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA06465 for pim-list; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 13:28:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: catarina.usc.edu: majordom set sender to owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu using -f Received: from usc.edu (root@usc.edu [128.125.253.136]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA06460 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 13:28:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dfssl.exchange.microsoft.com ([131.107.88.59]) by usc.edu (8.9.3.1/8.9.3/usc) with SMTP id NAA11467 for ; Thu, 27 Apr 2000 13:28:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.30.236.11 by dfssl.exchange.microsoft.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Thu, 27 Apr 2000 12:52:25 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time) Received: from SIT.platinum.corp.microsoft.com ([172.30.236.233]) by yuri.dns.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2172.1); Thu, 27 Apr 2000 12:58:12 -0700 content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: can u ssend me Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 12:39:22 -0700 Message-ID: <19398D273324D3118A2B0008C7E9A5690C6C1E6A@SIT.platinum.corp.microsoft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BFB080.494A2884" Thread-Topic: can u ssend me Thread-Index: Ab+we0DdrijwN0VwRBKfFwI6FyOkfwABVIXA X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4344.0 From: "Mohit Talwar" To: "Priyank Desai" Cc: "pim (E-mail)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Apr 2000 19:58:12.0757 (UTC) FILETIME=[EB2E2450:01BFB082] Sender: owner-pim@catarina.usc.edu Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFB080.494A2884 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable oh my god :))) =20 please excuse this crappy message. never meant to send it out on the list. =20 apologies, mohit. =20 -----Original Message----- From: Mohit Talwar=20 Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2000 10:42 AM To: Priyank Desai Cc: pim (E-mail) Subject: RE: can u ssend me OF COURSE, but these are very sensitive issues,=20 if u want to sort out some protocol processing issue send mail to pim@catarina.usc.edu =20 but we could always talk =20 mohit. -----Original Message----- From: Priyank Desai [mailto:Priyank.Desai@windriver.com] Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2000 10:49 AM To: Mohit Talwar Subject: RE: can u ssend me aaare, muje code copy nahi karna. there is just a small confusion as=20 to processing the joinprune message. wohi dekhna tha =20 anyways, =20 Thanks, =20 ttu, p -----Original Message----- From: Mohit Talwar [mailto:mohitt@Exchange.Microsoft.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 2:05 PM To: Priyank Desai Subject: RE: can u ssend me abey gadhe, marvayega :)))=20 http://www.gated.org =20 try gated, they have a public pim implementation=20 but there will certainly be some copyright issues=20 check with ur company lawyers.=20 >-----Original Message-----=20 >From: Priyank Desai [ mailto:Priyank.Desai@windriver.com ]=20 >Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 1:45 PM=20 >To: Mohit Talwar=20 >Subject: can u ssend me=20 >=20 >=20 >pim_joinprune_message.c and .h files=20 >I mean the processing part and creation/deletion part.=20 >=20 >=20 >Thanks.=20 >Priyank=20 >=20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01BFB080.494A2884 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: can u ssend me
oh my=20 god :)))
 
please=20 excuse this crappy message.  never meant to send it = out on the=20 list.
 
apologies,
mohit.
 
 -----Original=20 Message-----
From: Mohit Talwar
Sent: Thursday, = April 27,=20 2000 10:42 AM
To: Priyank Desai
Cc: pim=20 (E-mail)
Subject: RE: can u ssend = me

OF=20 COURSE,
but=20 these are very sensitive issues,
if u=20 want to sort out some protocol processing issue
send=20 mail to pim@catarina.usc.edu
but=20 we could always talk
 
mohit.
-----Original Message-----
From: Priyank Desai=20 [mailto:Priyank.Desai@windriver.com]
Sent: Thursday, April = 27,=20 2000 10:49 AM
To: Mohit Talwar
Subject: RE: can = u ssend=20 me

aaare, muje code copy nahi karna. there = is just a=20 small confusion as
to=20 processing the joinprune message. wohi dekhna = tha
 
anyways,
 
Thanks,
 
ttu,
p
-----Original Message-----
From: Mohit Talwar=20 [mailto:mohitt@Exchange.Microsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, = April=20 26, 2000 2:05 PM
To: Priyank Desai
Subject: = RE: can u=20 ssend me

abey gadhe, marvayega :)))

http://www.gated.org

try gated, they have a public pim = implementation=20
but there will certainly be some copyright = issues=20
check with ur company lawyers.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Priyank Desai [mailto:Priyank.Desai@windrive= r.com]=20
>Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 1:45 = PM=20
>To: Mohit Talwar
>Subject:=20 can u ssend me
>
>
>pim_joinprune_message.c and .h=20 files
>I mean the processing part and = creation/deletion part.
> =
>
>Thanks. =
>Priyank
>=20

------_=_NextPart_001_01BFB080.494A2884--