From 558-mailing-list-admin@catarina.usc.edu Sat Feb 1 08:22:29 2003 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [204.57.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA05471 for ; Sat, 1 Feb 2003 08:22:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h11DJMp07510 for ; Sat, 1 Feb 2003 05:19:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from 558-mailing-list-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 05:19:22 -0800 Message-ID: <20030201131922.3500.90223.Mailman@catarina.usc.edu> Subject: catarina.usc.edu mailing list memberships reminder From: mailman-owner@catarina.usc.edu To: pim-archive@ietf.org X-No-Archive: yes X-Ack: no Sender: 558-mailing-list-admin@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: 558-mailing-list-admin@catarina.usc.edu X-BeenThere: 558-mailing-list@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk This is a reminder, sent out once a month, about your catarina.usc.edu mailing list memberships. It includes your subscription info and how to use it to change it or unsubscribe from a list. You can visit the URLs to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. In addition to the URL interfaces, you can also use email to make such changes. For more info, send a message to the '-request' address of the list (for example, pim-request@catarina.usc.edu) containing just the word 'help' in the message body, and an email message will be sent to you with instructions. If you have questions, problems, comments, etc, send them to mailman-owner@catarina.usc.edu. Thanks! Passwords for pim-archive@lists.ietf.org: List Password // URL ---- -------- pim@catarina.usc.edu kimoit http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/options/pim/pim-archive%40lists.ietf.org From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Mon Feb 3 02:07:43 2003 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [204.57.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA29912 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 02:07:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1370Xp36912; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 23:00:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from mail.alcatel.be (alc250.alcatel.be [195.207.101.250]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h136vpp36857 for ; Sun, 2 Feb 2003 22:57:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from prashant.jhingran@alcatel.be) Received: from bemail04.net.alcatel.be (relay3 [127.0.0.1]) by mail.alcatel.be (8.11.0/8.11.4) with ESMTP id h13749Y24001 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:04:14 +0100 Received: from alcatel.be ([138.203.16.202]) by bemail04.net.alcatel.be (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.11) with ESMTP id 2003020308040721:987 ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:04:07 +0100 From: jhingran Message-ID: <3E3E1488.A2E9D0C7@alcatel.be> From: Prashant_JHINGRAN/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.7 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rahul Bahadur CC: pim@catarina.usc.edu Subject: Re: [pim] BSR draft? References: <1044043243.1652.68.camel@dadhcp-172019074062.americas.nokia.com> X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on BEMAIL04/BE/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 02/03/2003 08:04:07, Serialize by Router on BEMAIL04/BE/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 02/03/2003 08:04:13, Serialize complete at 02/03/2003 08:04:13 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 07:04:40 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Rahul, Indeed 02 seems to be the latest bsr draft. The macros in section 3 of the draft species the acceptance criteria while the last paragraph of the same section describes the transmission of RP Set by a DR in the form of a unicast message to each new neighbor. regards, Prashant Rahul Bahadur wrote: > A question and a comment about the BSR draft: > > 1) Has a new draft been published or is one in the pipeline? The last > one I know of is draft-ietf-pim-sm-bsr-02.txt(11/01). > > 2) Although section 3 of the above-mentioned draft describes the > acceptance of BSR messages unicast to the router when in "Accept Any" > state, I don't see a comment about sending the current RP-set to a new > neighbor when the local router is the DR. Maybe this needs to be added? > > Thanks, > Rahul > > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@catarina.usc.edu > http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Tue Feb 4 02:28:59 2003 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [204.57.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA12829 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 02:28:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h147Lgp54776; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 23:21:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from xover.netplane.com (fwout.maker.com [12.27.183.253] (may be forged)) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h147Hhp54720 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 23:17:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from MurthyE@netplane.com) Received: by XOVER with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1HXT8Y9Q>; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 02:23:57 -0500 Message-ID: From: Murthy Esakonu To: "'jhingran'" , Rahul Bahadur Cc: pim@catarina.usc.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: [pim] admin scope zones in BSR draft Sender: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 02:25:58 -0500 Hi All, On more query on PIM-BSR draft. In this draft it is not clearly mentioned how to specify a admin scope zone in the BSR message. In group address 1..n, the first group address/mask specifies the group range for the entire admin scope zone. But to which admin scope zone?. In draft-ietf-pim-mib-v2-00.txt, pimComponentIndex is used to specify the admin scope zone, but BSR message format is not facilitating exchange of this information with peers. Is this information missing from the draft ? Thanks & Regards Murthy -----Original Message----- From: jhingran [mailto:prashant.jhingran@alcatel.be] Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 12:35 PM To: Rahul Bahadur Cc: pim@catarina.usc.edu Subject: Re: [pim] BSR draft? Hi Rahul, Indeed 02 seems to be the latest bsr draft. The macros in section 3 of the draft species the acceptance criteria while the last paragraph of the same section describes the transmission of RP Set by a DR in the form of a unicast message to each new neighbor. regards, Prashant Rahul Bahadur wrote: > A question and a comment about the BSR draft: > > 1) Has a new draft been published or is one in the pipeline? The last > one I know of is draft-ietf-pim-sm-bsr-02.txt(11/01). > > 2) Although section 3 of the above-mentioned draft describes the > acceptance of BSR messages unicast to the router when in "Accept Any" > state, I don't see a comment about sending the current RP-set to a new > neighbor when the local router is the DR. Maybe this needs to be added? > > Thanks, > Rahul > > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@catarina.usc.edu > http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Tue Feb 4 10:54:33 2003 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [204.57.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA25995 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 10:54:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h14FlNp61230; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 07:47:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from vulture.icir.org (adsl-67-117-79-130.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net [67.117.79.130]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h14Fiep61185 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 07:44:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mjh@vulture.icir.org) Received: from vulture.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vulture.icir.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h14FoveM000618; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 07:50:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mjh@vulture.icir.org) From: Mark Handley X-Organisation: ICIR To: Murthy Esakonu cc: "'jhingran'" , Rahul Bahadur , pim@catarina.usc.edu Subject: Re: [pim] admin scope zones in BSR draft In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 04 Feb 2003 02:25:58 EST." Message-ID: <617.1044373857@vulture.icir.org> Sender: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 07:50:57 -0800 >In group address 1..n, the first group address/mask specifies the group >range >for the entire admin scope zone. But to which admin scope zone?. The admin scope zone that this bootstrap message is conveying. Different admin scope zones need to be in different bootstrap messages. >In draft-ietf-pim-mib-v2-00.txt, pimComponentIndex is used to specify the >admin scope zone, but BSR message format is not facilitating exchange of >this >information with peers. > >Is this information missing from the draft ? The MIB spec may well be out of date - it certainly predates the current BSR mechanisms for conveying admin scope data. - Mark _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Wed Feb 5 18:51:07 2003 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [204.57.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15734 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 18:51:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h15Nhop84481; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 15:43:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from prattle.redback.com (hiddenuser@prattle.redback.com [155.53.12.9]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h15Nf1p84446 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 15:41:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from lwei@redback.com) Received: from liming-pc.redback.com (liming-pc.redback.com [155.53.36.120]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 999F144C524 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 15:47:42 -0800 (PST) Received: (from lwei@localhost) by liming-pc.redback.com (8.11.3nb1/8.8.8/null redback bsdclient) id h15NlgV02935; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 15:47:42 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200302052347.h15NlgV02935@liming-pc.redback.com> From: Liming Wei To: pim@catarina.usc.edu Reply-To: lwei@redback.com Subject: [pim] Call for agenda items for PIM WG in San Francisco Sender: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 15:47:42 -0800 (PST) Hi folks, Please post request for presentation items here, or send them to me/Tom. -Liming _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Thu Feb 6 09:07:46 2003 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [204.57.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA18207 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 09:07:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h16E0Hp95299; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 06:00:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from dns1.tilab.com ([163.162.42.4]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h16Dw1p95249 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 05:58:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Emanuele.Logalbo@TILAB.COM) Received: from iowa.cselt.it (iowa.cselt.it [163.162.4.49]) by dns1.cselt.it (PMDF V6.0-025 #38895) with ESMTP id <0H9W0027Z4CRF5@dns1.cselt.it> for pim@catarina.usc.edu; Thu, 06 Feb 2003 15:02:52 +0100 (MET) Received: from iowa.cselt.it ([163.162.4.49]) by iowa.cselt.it with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Thu, 06 Feb 2003 15:01:42 +0100 Received: from EXC2K01A.cselt.it ([163.162.4.34]) by iowa.cselt.it with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Thu, 06 Feb 2003 15:01:42 +0100 From: Lo Galbo Emanuele To: pim@catarina.usc.edu Message-id: <9620749A0C40FB49B72994B11B077C5DD25FF0@EXC2K01A.cselt.it> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Importance: normal Priority: normal Thread-Topic: pim6sd &multicast Thread-Index: AcLN6EZ+lP1YV0O2SZO4ZoHb1McOmQ== content-class: urn:content-classes:message X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Feb 2003 14:01:42.0314 (UTC) FILETIME=[46C3D0A0:01C2CDE8] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by catarina.usc.edu id h16Dw1p95249 Subject: [pim] pim6sd &multicast Sender: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 15:01:41 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi. I have set up a Ipv6 multicast test plant. I installed pim6sd from its port in each of the 3 router freebsd 4.7 I am going to set up. I wrote static unicast routing table instead of using RIP (I mean routed). Running netstat -nr I can find unicast routing table (infact I can ping all of my machines) but there are no multicast address except reserved ones. When I run pim6sd it tell me there is no global address available. What does it mean? In reality I gave site-local addresses to all interfaces because I want to estabilish an external link after having tested vic, rat, ect .. in local enviroment. So have I to give global addresses? I hope you will help me again. Thank you. Best regards Emanuele ==================================================================== CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by replying to MailAdmin@tilab.com. Thank you ==================================================================== _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Thu Feb 6 13:33:38 2003 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [204.57.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29537 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:33:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h16IPgp98500; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 10:25:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from dns1.tilab.com ([163.162.42.4]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h16IOvp98470 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 10:24:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Emanuele.Logalbo@TILAB.COM) Received: from iowa.cselt.it (iowa.cselt.it [163.162.4.49]) by dns1.cselt.it (PMDF V6.0-025 #38895) with ESMTP id <0H9W00783GQNVC@dns1.cselt.it> for pim@catarina.usc.edu; Thu, 06 Feb 2003 19:30:23 +0100 (MET) Received: from iowa.cselt.it ([163.162.4.49]) by iowa.cselt.it with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Thu, 06 Feb 2003 19:29:13 +0100 Received: from EXC2K01A.cselt.it ([163.162.4.34]) by iowa.cselt.it with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Thu, 06 Feb 2003 19:29:13 +0100 From: Lo Galbo Emanuele To: pim@catarina.usc.edu Message-id: <9620749A0C40FB49B72994B11B077C5DD25CCF@EXC2K01A.cselt.it> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Importance: normal Priority: normal Thread-Index: AcLODaWx3yXATBZtSvezTV+leoFcwQ== content-class: urn:content-classes:message X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Feb 2003 18:29:13.0599 (UTC) FILETIME=[A61388F0:01C2CE0D] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by catarina.usc.edu id h16IOvp98470 Subject: [pim] (no subject) Sender: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 19:29:13 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi. I have to implement ipv6 multicast routing using 3 routers freebsd 4.7. I have downloaded pim6sd from port proceding with the "make install" command.Now in my test plant there are no hosts I mean I have just 3 routers linked together. I have some doubts and I hope you will help me. 1)At this point if I run the command netstat -g the following message appear:"IPv6 Multicast routing entry is empty". So How can I start with pim6sd daemon given that pim6sd appear being in "select" state ( I ran top command)?. 2)How can I understand pim6sd is working or not? 3) when as root, I write "pim6sd" the following message appear:"cannot enable multicast routing:the address is already in use". What does it mean? I have configure well all the routing tables and there are no problems with unicast routing.So, what is wrong? 4) the pim6sd.conf file is empty. Aren't the interfaces all included in multicast by default? or must i configure it? Thank you for your hints. Best Regards. Emanuele ==================================================================== CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by replying to MailAdmin@tilab.com. Thank you ==================================================================== _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Thu Feb 6 13:35:40 2003 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [204.57.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA29617 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:35:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h16IT4p98589; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 10:29:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from dns1.tilab.com ([163.162.42.4]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h16ISSp98563 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 10:28:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Emanuele.Logalbo@TILAB.COM) Received: from iowa.cselt.it (iowa.cselt.it [163.162.4.49]) by dns1.cselt.it (PMDF V6.0-025 #38895) with ESMTP id <0H9W0083LGWI19@dns1.cselt.it> for pim@catarina.usc.edu; Thu, 06 Feb 2003 19:33:55 +0100 (MET) Received: from iowa.cselt.it ([163.162.4.49]) by iowa.cselt.it with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Thu, 06 Feb 2003 19:32:45 +0100 Received: from EXC2K01A.cselt.it ([163.162.4.34]) by iowa.cselt.it with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Thu, 06 Feb 2003 19:32:45 +0100 From: Lo Galbo Emanuele To: pim@catarina.usc.edu Message-id: <9620749A0C40FB49B72994B11B077C5DD25FF7@EXC2K01A.cselt.it> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Importance: normal Priority: normal Thread-Topic: problem with pim6sd6freebsd4.7;help please Thread-Index: AcLODiPXctb/L/DLS1OOqRmjRnHY+w== content-class: urn:content-classes:message X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Feb 2003 18:32:45.0314 (UTC) FILETIME=[2444AE20:01C2CE0E] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by catarina.usc.edu id h16ISSp98563 Subject: [pim] problem with pim6sd6freebsd4.7;help please Sender: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 19:32:44 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi. I have to implement ipv6 multicast routing using 3 routers freebsd 4.7. I have downloaded pim6sd from port proceding with the "make install" command.Now in my test plant there are no hosts I mean I have just 3 routers linked together. I have some doubts and I hope you will help me. 1)At this point if I run the command netstat -g the following message appear:"IPv6 Multicast routing entry is empty". So How can I start with pim6sd daemon given that pim6sd appear being in "select" state ( I ran top command)?. 2)How can I understand pim6sd is working or not? 3) when as root, I write "pim6sd" the following message appear:"cannot enable multicast routing:the address is already in use". What does it mean? I have configure well all the routing tables and there are no problems with unicast routing.So, what is wrong? 4) the pim6sd.conf file is empty. Aren't the interfaces all included in multicast by default? or must i configure it? Thank you for your hints. Best Regards. Emanuele ==================================================================== CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by replying to MailAdmin@tilab.com. Thank you ==================================================================== _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Thu Feb 6 20:16:11 2003 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [204.57.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA11347 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 20:16:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1716TK03834; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 17:06:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from macker.loria.fr (macker.loria.fr [152.81.1.70]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h16EZkp95716 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 06:35:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Abdelkader.Lahmadi@loria.fr) Received: from localhost.loria.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58485742A; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 15:42:36 +0100 (MET) X-Amavix: Anti-virus check done by McAfee X-Amavix: Scanned by Amavix Received: from loria.fr (xrousse.loria.fr [152.81.7.76]) by macker.loria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9D1E7425; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 15:42:34 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3E428159.AA020657@loria.fr> From: Abdelkader Lahmadi X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.14 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lo Galbo Emanuele Cc: pim@catarina.usc.edu Subject: Re: [pim] pim6sd &multicast References: <9620749A0C40FB49B72994B11B077C5DD25FF0@EXC2K01A.cselt.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 16:38:01 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lo Galbo Emanuele wrote: > Hi. > I have set up a Ipv6 multicast test plant. > I installed pim6sd from its port in each of the 3 router freebsd 4.7 I am going to set up. > I wrote static unicast routing table instead of using RIP (I mean routed). > Running netstat -nr I can find unicast routing table (infact I can ping all of my machines) but there are no multicast address except reserved ones. use netstat -g to show the multicast table in the kernel > > When I run pim6sd it tell me there is no global address available. > What does it mean? In reality I gave site-local addresses to all interfaces because I want to estabilish an external link after having tested vic, rat, ect .. in local enviroment. > So have I to give global addresses? > I hope you will help me again. Thank you. > Best regards > Emanuele > > ==================================================================== > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE > This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons > above and may contain confidential information. If you have received > the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof > is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete > the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by > replying to MailAdmin@tilab.com. Thank you > ==================================================================== > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@catarina.usc.edu > http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Thu Feb 6 21:39:33 2003 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [204.57.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA13301 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 21:39:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h172WQK05083; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 18:32:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from shuttle.wide.toshiba.co.jp (shuttle.wide.toshiba.co.jp [202.249.10.124]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h172VOK05058 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 18:31:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp) Received: from localhost ([3ffe:501:4819:2000:6426:b9f5:1ec5:9eb7]) by shuttle.wide.toshiba.co.jp (8.11.6/8.9.1) with ESMTP id h172c8P10203; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 11:38:08 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= To: Lo Galbo Emanuele Cc: pim@catarina.usc.edu Subject: Re: [pim] problem with pim6sd6freebsd4.7;help please In-Reply-To: <9620749A0C40FB49B72994B11B077C5DD25FF7@EXC2K01A.cselt.it> References: <9620749A0C40FB49B72994B11B077C5DD25FF7@EXC2K01A.cselt.it> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.6.1 (Upside Down) Emacs/21.2 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) Organization: Research & Development Center, Toshiba Corp., Kawasaki, Japan. MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.3 - "Ushinoya") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) Lines: 38 Sender: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 11:38:07 +0900 >>>>> On Thu, 06 Feb 2003 19:32:44 +0100, >>>>> Lo Galbo Emanuele said: > I have to implement ipv6 multicast routing using 3 routers freebsd 4.7. > I have downloaded pim6sd from port proceding with the "make install" > command.Now in my test plant there are no hosts I mean I have just 3 > routers linked together. I have some doubts and I hope you will help > me. First of all, this mailing list is not appropriate to discuss implementation specific issues. For further questions, I'd recommend you to use, e.g., snap-users@kame.net. > 1)At this point if I run the command netstat -g the following message appear:"IPv6 Multicast routing entry is empty". So How can I start with pim6sd daemon given that pim6sd appear being in "select" state ( I ran top command)?. netstat -g will always say "empty" unless the router is actually forwarding multicast packets. > 2)How can I understand pim6sd is working or not? I don't really understand the question, but please try # pim6stat > 3) when as root, I write "pim6sd" the following message appear:"cannot enable multicast routing:the address is already in use". What does it mean? I have configure well all the routing tables and there are no problems with unicast routing.So, what is wrong? I guess you invoked pim6sd multiple times. Please be sure there is no other pim6sd process. > 4) the pim6sd.conf file is empty. Aren't the interfaces all included in multicast by default? or must i configure it? An empty pim6sd.conf should be okay. Please go through the man page of pim6sd(8)... JINMEI, Tatuya Communication Platform Lab. Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp. jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Fri Feb 7 03:54:29 2003 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [204.57.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA02037 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 03:54:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h178kAK09352; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 00:46:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from orange.kame.net (orange.kame.net [203.178.141.194]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h178i5K09315 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 00:44:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from suz@crl.hitachi.co.jp) Received: from s30.crl.hitachi.co.jp (orange.kame.net [203.178.141.194]) by orange.kame.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F296715A; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 17:51:06 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: From: SUZUKI Shinsuke To: lwei@redback.com Cc: pim@catarina.usc.edu, jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp Subject: Re: [pim] Call for agenda items for PIM WG in San Francisco X-cite: xcite 1.33 In-Reply-To: <200302052347.h15NlgV02935@liming-pc.redback.com> References: <200302052347.h15NlgV02935@liming-pc.redback.com> User-Agent: User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.11.1 (Wonderwall) Emacs/21.1 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) Organization: Network Architecture Research Dept., Central Research Laboratory, Hitachi, Ltd, Japan MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.4 - "Hosorogi") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 17:50:41 +0900 >>>>> On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 15:47:42 -0800 (PST) >>>>> lwei@redback.com(Liming Wei) said: > Please post request for presentation items here, or send > them to me/Tom. I'd like to make a presentation regarding PIM RPF failure when a router has multiple addresses on a link. (now writing a 00-draft, and it'll be available soon) So could you please give me 10 minutes? P.S.) But there's no PIM WG session in the current agenda. Could you please tell me when you will have this session? #if it's Friday morning, I have to change my flight... Thanks, ---- SUZUKI, Shinsuke @ Hitachi / KAME Project _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Fri Feb 7 10:18:39 2003 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [204.57.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA13222 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 10:18:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h17FBHK14416; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 07:11:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from mail.iskon.hr (mail.iskon.hr [213.191.128.4]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id h17F9cK14381 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 07:09:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from vladimir.semencic@amphinicy.hr) Received: (qmail 9813 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2003 16:16:29 +0100 Received: from unknown (HELO VLADI) (213.191.147.57) by mail.iskon.hr with SMTP; 7 Feb 2003 16:16:29 +0100 From: "Vladimir Semencic" To: "pim-list" Subject: FW: [pim] Multicast packets not forwarding between subnets (linux) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Sender: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 16:16:36 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tnx for reply, but the thing that solved my problem is rather strange. To test routing I've used iperf utility. As I've said before I've had iperf running on a client that is on one subnet and server which is on other subnet (and pimd routing packets). Packets were not forarded although I could see in pimd debug mode that joining to the group server was sending to was performed ok by client. Then, when I started another iperf receiver on the host where pimd was running everything worked and both clients started receving traffic. Strange enough for me. Any help or hints?? vladi -------------------------- Your BoxA is not on a subnet of your router - it looks like you might be able to fix it by changing the IP address of BoxA from 172.16.2.1 to 172.16.3.2 Cyndi -----Original Message----- From: Vladimir Semencic [mailto:vladimir.semencic@amphinicy.hr] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 7:39 AM To: pim@catarina.usc.edu Subject: [pim] Multicast packets not forwarding between subnets (linux) My problem might be trivial for those experienced users. I've found questions like mine on the net but no answers. WHAT I WANT TO DO: Have a Linux Box "boxB1" route multicast traffic from subnet A to subnet B. No tunnels (for now) are needed. Subnets configuration: --------- --------- --eth0-| boxA |-eth1--------------------eth1-|gateway|--eth0------Internet | --------- --------- | 172.16.2.1 192.168.1.13 | | | | ROUTER 172.16.4.2 | --------- --------- --eth0-| boxB1 |-eth1-----------eth0-| boxB2 | --------- --------- 172.16.3.1 172.16.4.1 I've done following. - installed RH 7.3 on each machine - compiled kernel with support for multicasting - have ip_forwarding enabled - iptables firewall rules ACCEPT everything - installed routing dameon (tries both mrouted 3.9b3 and pimd-2.1.0-alpha29.13) - enabled multicasting on all interfaces I wanted to test multicasting with iperf, so what I did is: boxA: iperf -c 224.0.50.50 -u boxB2: iperf -s -B 224.0.50.50 -u boxB1 is runnung routing dameon. >From debug info of the (both) routing dameon I can see that both boxes have joined the group, but no traffic is received on boxB2 (I did try connecting them directly and that works, but it's not what I want :))) But it shows that multicasting is enabled at least. In one document I've read that Multicast routing will not forward a packet unless the source of the packet passes a reverse path forwarding check. Is this the reason why I packets are not forwarded or something else I've missed. OK. Here are the routing tables for those boxes: Sorry for the huge message but I'm stuck. [boxB1 - routing daemon] ------------------------ # route -n Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 172.16.4.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 172.16.2.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 172.16.3.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo 224.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 0.0.0.0 172.16.2.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 # ip a s 1: lo: mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00 inet 127.0.0.1/8 brd 127.255.255.255 scope host lo 2: eth0: mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 100 link/ether 00:30:00:04:b9:34 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff inet 172.16.3.1/24 brd 172.16.3.255 scope global eth0 3: eth1: mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 100 link/ether 00:30:00:04:b9:33 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff inet 172.16.4.1/24 brd 172.16.4.255 scope global eth1 4: gre0@NONE: mtu 1476 qdisc noop link/gre 0.0.0.0 brd 0.0.0.0 5: tunl0@NONE: mtu 1480 qdisc noop link/ipip 0.0.0.0 brd 0.0.0.0 52: pimreg@NONE: mtu 1472 qdisc noqueue link/pimreg # route -n [boxA - iperf client] ---------------------- Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 172.16.2.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 172.16.3.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo 224.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 0.0.0.0 172.16.3.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 # ip a s 1: lo: mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00 inet 127.0.0.1/8 brd 127.255.255.255 scope host lo 2: eth0: mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 100 link/ether 00:30:00:04:b9:cc brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff inet 172.16.2.1/24 brd 172.16.2.255 scope global eth0 3: eth1: mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 100 link/ether 00:30:00:04:b9:cb brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff inet 192.168.1.135/24 brd 172.16.2.255 scope global eth1 4: gre0@NONE: mtu 1476 qdisc noop link/gre 0.0.0.0 brd 0.0.0.0 6: tunl0@NONE: mtu 1480 qdisc noop link/ipip 0.0.0.0 brd 0.0.0.0 [boxB2 - iperf server] ---------------------- # route -n Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 172.16.4.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo 224.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 240.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 0.0.0.0 172.16.4.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 # ip a s 1: lo: mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00 inet 127.0.0.1/8 brd 127.255.255.255 scope host lo 2: eth0: mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 100 link/ether 00:e0:4c:6c:36:d7 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff inet 172.16.4.2/24 brd 172.16.4.255 scope global eth0 3: eth1: mtu 1500 qdisc noop qlen 100 link/ether 00:40:f4:1e:10:bf brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff tnx a lot vladi _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Fri Feb 7 12:47:08 2003 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [204.57.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16492 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 12:47:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h17HddK16150; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 09:39:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from misexc1.vanguardms.com ([66.46.233.197]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h17HcRK16117 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 09:38:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from SweeLoke@vanguardms.com) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-ID: <956787484528C441AF3A4A723CD16E134F69F8@misexc1.vanguardms.com> Thread-Topic: Question on PIM Assert FSM Thread-Index: AcLO0K71hFHKPxNISqOn49FzDRKb9w== From: "Loke, Swee" To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by catarina.usc.edu id h17HcRK16117 Subject: [pim] Question on PIM Assert FSM Sender: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 12:45:21 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, I have questions on PIM Assert FSM in the new draft. Receiver---| better path |---R1----.......---R10(RP)..... | i1 / | / |---R2(DR)---...--/ i2 In this example, R1 and R2 are on the same subnet (connected via i1 and i2 respectively) as the receiver. R2 is the DR. The receiver joins (*,G1) for which R10 is the RP. R1 has better path to the R10 and it is R2's RPF(R10) neighbour. And R1 (non DR) will keep (*,G1) oif=null. Since R2 is the DR, it keeps the route (*,G1) iif = i2 oif = {i2} Question 1: Is this legal, to have iif==oif? If PIM removes the iif from the oif list, R2 will end up with oif(*,G1)=null and will send a prune instead of a join, and delete the entry). Question 2: Assume it is legal in pim to have iif in the oif list, and R2 keeps that entry, and R2 sends pim join to R1, and R1 will just add i2 to its oif. In the PIM Assert FSM, if traffic doesn't arrive, there is nothing to trigger the Assert. In the NoInfo state, only receiving an assert or data can transition it to a different state. Hence at the mean time, R2 has to send periodic joins upstream to R1 (assume it doesn't delete i2 from the oif(*,G1) list) and that doesn't seem efficient. If we allow the transition for R2 to become Assert Winner earlier, R2 will not need to send periodic join to R1 for(*,G1) anymore. Please let me know if I miss something in the new draft. Thanks, swee _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Fri Feb 7 13:21:17 2003 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [204.57.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA17218 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 13:21:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h17IEVK16655; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 10:14:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from prattle.redback.com (hiddenuser@prattle.redback.com [155.53.12.9]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h17IDnK16635 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 10:13:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from lwei@redback.com) Received: from liming-pc.redback.com (liming-pc.redback.com [155.53.36.120]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DE724000A; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 10:20:51 -0800 (PST) Received: (from lwei@localhost) by liming-pc.redback.com (8.11.3nb1/8.8.8/null redback bsdclient) id h17IKpK13788; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 10:20:51 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200302071820.h17IKpK13788@liming-pc.redback.com> From: Liming Wei To: suz@crl.hitachi.co.jp Cc: pim@catarina.usc.edu, jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp In-reply-to: (message from SUZUKI Shinsuke on Fri, 07 Feb 2003 17:50:41 +0900) Subject: Re: [pim] Call for agenda items for PIM WG in San Francisco Reply-To: lwei@redback.com References: <200302052347.h15NlgV02935@liming-pc.redback.com> Sender: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 10:20:51 -0800 (PST) Suzuki, I'll put you down for 10 minutes. I have sent a request for meeting slot and will forward the allocation message once we receive the reply. The last IETF didn't have Friday sessions, I am not sure if they will do Friday sessions this time. Can you post your document here before the meeting week ? At least send it to Tom and myself before the meeting. -Liming --------- > From: SUZUKI Shinsuke > > >>>>> On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 15:47:42 -0800 (PST) > >>>>> lwei@redback.com(Liming Wei) said: > > > Please post request for presentation items here, or send > > them to me/Tom. > > I'd like to make a presentation regarding PIM RPF failure when a > router has multiple addresses on a link. > (now writing a 00-draft, and it'll be available soon) > > So could you please give me 10 minutes? > > > P.S.) But there's no PIM WG session in the current agenda. Could you > please tell me when you will have this session? > > #if it's Friday morning, I have to change my flight... > > Thanks, > ---- > SUZUKI, Shinsuke @ Hitachi / KAME Project > _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Fri Feb 7 13:26:10 2003 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [204.57.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA17317 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 13:26:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h17I6EK16522; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 10:06:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from dmz2.procket.com (dmz2.procket.com [65.174.124.37]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h17I5TK16504 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 10:05:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from John.Zwiebel@procket.com) Received: from miata.procket.com (zeus-d-1.procket.com [65.174.124.60]) by dmz2.procket.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E812F3444E; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 10:33:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from exchangefe1.na.procket.com (exchangefe1.na.procket.com [10.1.7.251]) by miata.procket.com (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h17ICTDw004854; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 10:12:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from procket.com ([10.1.1.1]) by exchangefe1.na.procket.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Fri, 7 Feb 2003 10:12:29 -0800 Subject: Re: [pim] Question on PIM Assert FSM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: John Zwiebel , To: "Loke, Swee" From: John Zwiebel In-Reply-To: <956787484528C441AF3A4A723CD16E134F69F8@misexc1.vanguardms.com> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Feb 2003 18:12:29.0555 (UTC) FILETIME=[7A085430:01C2CED4] Sender: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 10:12:31 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Friday, February 7, 2003, at 09:45 AM, Loke, Swee wrote: > Hi, > > I have questions on PIM Assert FSM in the new draft. > > > Receiver---| better path > |---R1----.......---R10(RP)..... > | i1 / > | / > |---R2(DR)---...--/ > i2 > > In this example, R1 and R2 are on the same subnet (connected > via i1 and i2 respectively) as the receiver. R2 is the DR. > The receiver joins (*,G1) for which R10 is the RP. R1 has > better path to the R10 and it is R2's RPF(R10) neighbour. > > And R1 (non DR) will keep (*,G1) oif=null. If R1 is the RPF neighbor for R2 for the RP-address then it will be R2 that has a NULL olist not R1. > > Since R2 is the DR, it keeps the route (*,G1) iif = i2 > oif = {i2} This is correct and implementation specific. Some implementations will not have I2 in the Olist. Some will. The important thing is that R2 as the DR is responsible for sending (*,G) joins toward the RP and in the way you describe this scenario, those joins will be sent to R1 which means R1 will not have a NULL Olist. > > Question 1: > Is this legal, to have iif==oif? If PIM removes the iif > from the oif list, R2 will end up with oif(*,G1)=null and > will send a prune instead of a join, and delete the entry). Which it obviously can't do. Whether or not you put the OIF in the Olist is implementation specific. Cisco does not put the OIF in the OLIST, but does mark the (*,G) with the knowledge that the IGMP cache is non-null. > > Question 2: > Assume it is legal in pim to have iif in the oif list, and R2 keeps > that entry, and R2 sends pim join to R1, and R1 will just add > i2 to its oif. There is no need for an assert here. The RPF for R2 is through R1. R2 is not going to forward a packet received on I2 back out I2. > In the PIM Assert FSM, if traffic doesn't arrive, there is nothing > to trigger the Assert. In the NoInfo state, only receiving an > assert or data can transition it to a different state. Hence at > the mean time, R2 has to send periodic joins upstream to R1 (assume > it doesn't delete i2 from the oif(*,G1) list) and that doesn't seem > efficient. If we allow the transition for R2 to become Assert Winner > earlier, R2 will not need to send periodic join to R1 for(*,G1) > anymore. > > Please let me know if I miss something in the new draft. > > Thanks, > swee > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@catarina.usc.edu > http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Mon Feb 10 13:50:16 2003 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [204.57.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20577 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 13:50:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1AIfmK67892; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 10:41:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from misexc1.vanguardms.com ([66.46.233.197]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1AIbEK67825 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 10:37:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from SweeLoke@vanguardms.com) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: [pim] Question on PIM Assert FSM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-ID: <956787484528C441AF3A4A723CD16E1353D3AD@misexc1.vanguardms.com> Thread-Topic: [pim] Question on PIM Assert FSM Thread-Index: AcLO1HsnsuqKJNjsTmaaPzoE1C3l+wCXoGLg From: "Loke, Swee" To: "John Zwiebel" Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by catarina.usc.edu id h1AIbEK67825 Sender: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 13:44:41 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Thanks for the response. More comments below. > On Friday, February 7, 2003, at 09:45 AM, Loke, Swee wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I have questions on PIM Assert FSM in the new draft. > > > > > > Receiver---| better path > > |---R1----.......---R10(RP)..... > > | i1 / > > | / > > |---R2(DR)---...--/ > > i2 > > > > In this example, R1 and R2 are on the same subnet (connected > > via i1 and i2 respectively) as the receiver. R2 is the DR. > > The receiver joins (*,G1) for which R10 is the RP. R1 has > > better path to the R10 and it is R2's RPF(R10) neighbour. > > > > And R1 (non DR) will keep (*,G1) oif=null. > > If R1 is the RPF neighbor for R2 for the RP-address then > it will be R2 that has a NULL olist not R1. Sorry, the oif=null was before R2 sends the triggered upstream join. I should have either mentioned the IGMP join later or included i1 in the oif list. > > Since R2 is the DR, it keeps the route (*,G1) iif = i2 > > oif = {i2} > > This is correct and implementation specific. Some implementations > will not have I2 in the Olist. Some will. The important thing > is that R2 as the DR is responsible for sending (*,G) joins toward the > RP and in the way you describe this scenario, those joins > will be sent to R1 which means R1 will not have a NULL Olist. Correct. > > Question 1: > > Is this legal, to have iif==oif? If PIM removes the iif > > from the oif list, R2 will end up with oif(*,G1)=null and > > will send a prune instead of a join, and delete the entry). > > Which it obviously can't do. Whether or not you put the > OIF in the Olist is implementation specific. Cisco does > not put the OIF in the OLIST, but does mark the (*,G) > with the knowledge that the IGMP cache is non-null. > > > > > Question 2: > > Assume it is legal in pim to have iif in the oif list, and R2 keeps > > that entry, and R2 sends pim join to R1, and R1 will just add > > i2 to its oif. > > There is no need for an assert here. The RPF for R2 is through > R1. R2 is not going to forward a packet received on I2 back out > I2. Ya, but if we can trigger assert in this scenario (maybe based on iif=oif in R2 or something else), R1 will become the assert winner and R2 doesn't need to send periodic join to R1 anymore. It just seemed more efficient that way... I just wonder why we don't trigger an assert in this case. > > In the PIM Assert FSM, if traffic doesn't arrive, there is nothing > > to trigger the Assert. In the NoInfo state, only receiving an > > assert or data can transition it to a different state. Hence at > > the mean time, R2 has to send periodic joins upstream to R1 (assume > > it doesn't delete i2 from the oif(*,G1) list) and that doesn't seem > > efficient. If we allow the transition for R2 to become Assert Winner > > earlier, R2 will not need to send periodic join to R1 for(*,G1) > > anymore. > > > > Please let me know if I miss something in the new draft. > > > > Thanks, > > swee _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Mon Feb 10 14:01:16 2003 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [204.57.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA20915 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 14:01:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1AIs7K68092; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 10:54:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from dmz1.procket.com (dmz1.procket.com [65.174.124.36]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1AIr6K68067 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 10:53:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from John.Zwiebel@procket.com) Received: from miata.procket.com (zeus-d-1.procket.com [65.174.124.60]) by dmz1.procket.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF2B123C42; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:13:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from exchangefe1.na.procket.com (exchangefe1.na.procket.com [10.1.7.251]) by miata.procket.com (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h1AJ0XDw023953; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:00:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from procket.com ([10.1.1.1]) by exchangefe1.na.procket.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:00:32 -0800 Subject: Re: [pim] Question on PIM Assert FSM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: John Zwiebel , To: "Loke, Swee" From: John Zwiebel In-Reply-To: <956787484528C441AF3A4A723CD16E1353D3AD@misexc1.vanguardms.com> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.551) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Feb 2003 19:00:33.0004 (UTC) FILETIME=[AFF0FAC0:01C2D136] Sender: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:00:32 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit If you are suggesting that R2 should trigger an assert to hand off DR functions to R1, I suppose one could, but I doubt you are going to get any implementers to change what they have now since there doesn't appear to be much of a gain in functionality and its important to keep the DR as the DR to avoid confusion when trying to debug a network problem. On Monday, February 10, 2003, at 10:44 AM, Loke, Swee wrote: > > Thanks for the response. More comments below. > >> On Friday, February 7, 2003, at 09:45 AM, Loke, Swee wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have questions on PIM Assert FSM in the new draft. >>> >>> >>> Receiver---| better path >>> |---R1----.......---R10(RP)..... >>> | i1 / >>> | / >>> |---R2(DR)---...--/ >>> i2 >>> >>> In this example, R1 and R2 are on the same subnet (connected >>> via i1 and i2 respectively) as the receiver. R2 is the DR. >>> The receiver joins (*,G1) for which R10 is the RP. R1 has >>> better path to the R10 and it is R2's RPF(R10) neighbour. >>> >>> And R1 (non DR) will keep (*,G1) oif=null. >> >> If R1 is the RPF neighbor for R2 for the RP-address then >> it will be R2 that has a NULL olist not R1. > > Sorry, the oif=null was before R2 sends the triggered upstream join. > I should have either mentioned the IGMP join later or included > i1 in the oif list. > >>> Since R2 is the DR, it keeps the route (*,G1) iif = i2 >>> oif = {i2} >> >> This is correct and implementation specific. Some implementations >> will not have I2 in the Olist. Some will. The important thing >> is that R2 as the DR is responsible for sending (*,G) joins toward the >> RP and in the way you describe this scenario, those joins >> will be sent to R1 which means R1 will not have a NULL Olist. > > Correct. > >>> Question 1: >>> Is this legal, to have iif==oif? If PIM removes the iif >>> from the oif list, R2 will end up with oif(*,G1)=null and >>> will send a prune instead of a join, and delete the entry). >> >> Which it obviously can't do. Whether or not you put the >> OIF in the Olist is implementation specific. Cisco does >> not put the OIF in the OLIST, but does mark the (*,G) >> with the knowledge that the IGMP cache is non-null. >> >>> >>> Question 2: >>> Assume it is legal in pim to have iif in the oif list, and R2 keeps >>> that entry, and R2 sends pim join to R1, and R1 will just add >>> i2 to its oif. >> >> There is no need for an assert here. The RPF for R2 is through >> R1. R2 is not going to forward a packet received on I2 back out >> I2. > > Ya, but if we can trigger assert in this scenario (maybe based > on iif=oif in R2 or something else), R1 will become the assert > winner and R2 doesn't need to send periodic join to R1 anymore. > It just seemed more efficient that way... I just wonder why we > don't trigger an assert in this case. > >>> In the PIM Assert FSM, if traffic doesn't arrive, there is nothing >>> to trigger the Assert. In the NoInfo state, only receiving an >>> assert or data can transition it to a different state. Hence at >>> the mean time, R2 has to send periodic joins upstream to R1 (assume >>> it doesn't delete i2 from the oif(*,G1) list) and that doesn't seem >>> efficient. If we allow the transition for R2 to become Assert Winner >>> earlier, R2 will not need to send periodic join to R1 for(*,G1) >>> anymore. >>> >>> Please let me know if I miss something in the new draft. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> swee _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Mon Feb 10 19:27:12 2003 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [204.57.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA02170 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 19:27:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1B0J3K72287; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:19:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from prattle.redback.com (hiddenuser@prattle.redback.com [155.53.12.9]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1B0HgK72257 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:17:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from lwei@redback.com) Received: from liming-pc.redback.com (liming-pc.redback.com [155.53.36.120]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6E2732FEAF for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:25:15 -0800 (PST) Received: (from lwei@localhost) by liming-pc.redback.com (8.11.3nb1/8.8.8/null redback bsdclient) id h1B0PFk13558; Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:25:15 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200302110025.h1B0PFk13558@liming-pc.redback.com> From: Liming Wei To: pim@catarina.usc.edu Reply-To: lwei@redback.com Subject: [pim] [dinaras@ietf.org: Re: 56th IETF Meeting - WG & BOF Scheduling] Sender: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:25:15 -0800 (PST) FYI. ------- Start of forwarded message ------- Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 15:15:57 -0500 To: lwei@redback.com From: Dinara Suleymanova Subject: Re: 56th IETF Meeting - WG & BOF Scheduling In-Reply-To: <200302102015.h1AKFH412110@liming-pc.redback.com> Sorry, I guess I missed it. Your group is scheduled. Check the draft agenda on the web tomorrow. Dinara At 12:15 PM 2/10/03 -0800, you wrote: >Hi Dinara, > >Just wondering if you missed the "Protocol Independent Multicast" WG >scheduling request. Or if you didn't receive response from the area >directors, I'll ping them. > >It will be nice to get the allocation done sooner, since some >PIMWG participants need this information to make travel arrangements. > > > Thanks, >-Liming _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Tue Feb 11 14:48:49 2003 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [204.57.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16695 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 14:48:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1BJejK86365; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:40:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from prattle.redback.com (hiddenuser@prattle.redback.com [155.53.12.9]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1BJcuK86320 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:38:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from lwei@redback.com) Received: from liming-pc.redback.com (liming-pc.redback.com [155.53.36.120]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73105503008 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:46:36 -0800 (PST) Received: (from lwei@localhost) by liming-pc.redback.com (8.11.3nb1/8.8.8/null redback bsdclient) id h1BJka417572; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:46:36 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200302111946.h1BJka417572@liming-pc.redback.com> From: Liming Wei To: pim@catarina.usc.edu Subject: Re: [pim] [dinaras@ietf.org: Re: 56th IETF Meeting - WG & BOF Scheduling] Reply-To: lwei@redback.com References: <200302110025.h1B0PFk13558@liming-pc.redback.com> Sender: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:46:36 -0800 (PST) Hi folks, The PIM WG meeting is scheduled on Tuesday (3/18) 15:45-16:45. Here is the current agenda, o "Anycast-RP using PIM", Dino/Yiqun (20 mins) o "PIM RPF failure on link with multiple addresses", Suzuki Shinsuke (10 mins) -Liming & Tom _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Wed Feb 12 01:23:48 2003 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [204.57.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA00038 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 01:23:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1C6FtK94341; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 22:15:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from shuttle.wide.toshiba.co.jp (shuttle.wide.toshiba.co.jp [202.249.10.124]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1C6EkK94305 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 22:14:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp) Received: from localhost ([3ffe:501:4819:2000:200:39ff:fe10:85d7]) by shuttle.wide.toshiba.co.jp (8.11.6/8.9.1) with ESMTP id h1C6MUP68865; Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:22:31 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= To: lwei@redback.com Cc: suz@crl.hitachi.co.jp, pim@catarina.usc.edu Subject: Re: [pim] Call for agenda items for PIM WG in San Francisco In-Reply-To: <200302071820.h17IKpK13788@liming-pc.redback.com> References: <200302052347.h15NlgV02935@liming-pc.redback.com> <200302071820.h17IKpK13788@liming-pc.redback.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.6.1 (Upside Down) Emacs/21.2 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) Organization: Research & Development Center, Toshiba Corp., Kawasaki, Japan. MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.3 - "Ushinoya") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140) Lines: 13 Sender: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:22:33 +0900 >>>>> On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 10:20:51 -0800 (PST), >>>>> Liming Wei said: > Can you post your document here before the meeting week ? At least > send it to Tom and myself before the meeting. Yes, we're almost done on making the draft. We'll submit it before the cut-off date for initial submissions (Feb 24). JINMEI, Tatuya Communication Platform Lab. Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp. jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Thu Feb 13 12:53:20 2003 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [204.57.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19943 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:53:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1DHpWt15997; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:51:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1DHmot15950 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:48:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nsyracus@cnri.reston.va.us) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA19420; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:45:05 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200302131745.MAA19420@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: pim@catarina.usc.edu From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: [pim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pim-dm-new-v2-03.txt Sender: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:45:04 -0500 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Protocol Independent Multicast Working Group of the IETF. Title : Protocol Independent Multicast - Dense Mode (PIM-DM): Protocol Specification (Revised) Author(s) : A. Adams, J. Nicholas, W. Siadak Filename : draft-ietf-pim-dm-new-v2-03.txt Pages : 54 Date : 2003-2-12 This document specifies Protocol Independent Multicast - Dense Mode (PIM-DM). PIM-DM is a multicast routing protocol that uses the underlying unicast routing information base to flood multicast datagrams to all multicast routers. Prune messages are used to prevent future messages from propagating to routers with no group membership information. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pim-dm-new-v2-03.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-pim-dm-new-v2-03.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pim-dm-new-v2-03.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-2-13130410.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pim-dm-new-v2-03.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-pim-dm-new-v2-03.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-2-13130410.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Thu Feb 13 18:04:43 2003 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [204.57.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA17873 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 18:04:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1DN4ct19687; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 15:04:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from possum.icir.org (possum.icir.org [192.150.187.67]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1DN3Yt19664 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 15:03:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pavlin@possum.icir.org) Received: from possum.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by possum.icir.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h1DN3YuJ054799 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 15:03:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pavlin@possum.icir.org) Message-Id: <200302132303.h1DN3YuJ054799@possum.icir.org> To: pim@catarina.usc.edu From: Pavlin Radoslavov Subject: [pim] Bootstrap messages and Fragment Tag Sender: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 15:03:34 -0800 A question for all PIM-SM implementors. The definition of the Fragment Tag in the Bootstrap message is: Fragment Tag A randomly generated number, acts to distinguish the fragments belonging to different Bootstrap messages; fragments belonging to same Bootstrap message carry the same `Fragment Tag'. So far my understanding was that whenever the BS Timer at the BSR expires and the BSR resends the BSM, then this is a new/different Bootstrap message (even though the Cand-RP set hasn't changed), therefore the BSR uses a different Fragment Tag. E.g., the simplest solution is for the BSR to start with a randomly-generated Fragment Tag, and then increment it whenever it has to send another BSM. However, on another fresh reading of the draft I became a little bit dubious about what the definition of "different Bootstrap message" is. I.e., if someone assumes that "different" means only if the content of the message has changed, then this means that the BSR will be resending periodically BSMs with the same Fragment Tag. I'd like to know whether there are BSR implementations that keep reusing the same Fragment Tag if the BSM content hasn't changed. Or, am I the only one who thinks that the Fragment Tag should be changing? Thanks, Pavlin _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Thu Feb 13 19:07:15 2003 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [204.57.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA22717 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 19:07:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1E06vt20475; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:06:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from sj-msg-core-1.cisco.com (sj-msg-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.163.11]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1E05It20450 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:05:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rueddy@cisco.com) Received: from ena-view3.cisco.com (ena-view3.cisco.com [171.71.164.199]) by sj-msg-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1E05DSQ011497; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:05:14 -0800 (PST) From: rueddy@cisco.com Received: (rueddy@localhost) by ena-view3.cisco.com (8.8.8-Cisco List Logging/CISCO.WS.1.2) id QAA09534; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:05:13 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15948.12985.565750.153895@ena-view3.cisco.com> To: Pavlin Radoslavov Cc: pim@catarina.usc.edu Subject: Re: [pim] Bootstrap messages and Fragment Tag In-Reply-To: <200302132303.h1DN3YuJ054799@possum.icir.org> References: <200302132303.h1DN3YuJ054799@possum.icir.org> X-Mailer: VM 6.72 under 21.1 (patch 3) "Acadia" XEmacs Lucid Sender: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:05:13 -0800 (PST) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Pavlin, How are you? I've always assumed the fragment tag was unique to a set of fragments from one advertisement from the BSR, this to allow recieving routers to re-assemble fragments. Otherwise, if it is unique to a set across advertisements, then how would you know which advertisement a particular fragment belonged to. Note that i can't imagine having enough C-RPs to require a fragmented BSR message, nor why a fragment from one advertisement would still be zinging around a network after an entire period has passed. But that's how i've always interpreted the fragtag. I personally have never written an implementation that uses the same fragment tag ;) -rusty Pavlin Radoslavov states: > A question for all PIM-SM implementors. > > The definition of the Fragment Tag in the Bootstrap message is: > > Fragment Tag > A randomly generated number, acts to distinguish the fragments > belonging to different Bootstrap messages; fragments belonging to > same Bootstrap message carry the same `Fragment Tag'. > > > So far my understanding was that whenever the BS Timer at the BSR > expires and the BSR resends the BSM, then this is a new/different > Bootstrap message (even though the Cand-RP set hasn't changed), > therefore the BSR uses a different Fragment Tag. > E.g., the simplest solution is for the BSR to start with a > randomly-generated Fragment Tag, and then increment it whenever it > has to send another BSM. > > However, on another fresh reading of the draft I became a little bit > dubious about what the definition of "different Bootstrap message" > is. I.e., if someone assumes that "different" means only if the > content of the message has changed, then this means that the BSR > will be resending periodically BSMs with the same Fragment Tag. > > I'd like to know whether there are BSR implementations that keep > reusing the same Fragment Tag if the BSM content hasn't changed. > Or, am I the only one who thinks that the Fragment Tag should be > changing? > > Thanks, > Pavlin > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@catarina.usc.edu > http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Thu Feb 13 19:16:02 2003 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [204.57.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA23817 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 19:16:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1E0GBt20650; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:16:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from aardvark.icir.org (aardvark.icir.org [192.150.187.20]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1E0Fwt20631 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:15:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mjh@aardvark.icir.org) Received: from aardvark.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aardvark.icir.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h1E0Fwe0064310; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:15:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mjh@aardvark.icir.org) From: Mark Handley X-Organisation: ICIR To: rueddy@cisco.com cc: Pavlin Radoslavov , pim@catarina.usc.edu Subject: Re: [pim] Bootstrap messages and Fragment Tag In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:05:13 PST." <15948.12985.565750.153895@ena-view3.cisco.com> Message-ID: <64309.1045181758@aardvark.icir.org> Sender: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:15:58 -0800 > >Note that i can't imagine having enough C-RPs to require a fragmented >BSR message, nor why a fragment from one advertisement would still be >zinging around a network after an entire period has passed. But >that's how i've always interpreted the fragtag. > >I personally have never written an implementation that uses the same >fragment tag ;) Rusty, The use of multiple fragments is required if you support admin scoping. - Mark _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Thu Feb 13 19:24:52 2003 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [204.57.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA24229 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 19:24:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1E0P8t20820; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:25:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com (sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com [171.71.163.54]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1E0Obt20788 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:24:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rueddy@cisco.com) Received: from ena-view3.cisco.com (ena-view3.cisco.com [171.71.164.199]) by sj-msg-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h1E0OWap009175; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:24:32 -0800 (PST) From: rueddy@cisco.com Received: (rueddy@localhost) by ena-view3.cisco.com (8.8.8-Cisco List Logging/CISCO.WS.1.2) id QAA18461; Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:24:32 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15948.14144.15858.262937@ena-view3.cisco.com> To: Mark Handley Cc: rueddy@cisco.com, Pavlin Radoslavov , pim@catarina.usc.edu Subject: Re: [pim] Bootstrap messages and Fragment Tag In-Reply-To: <64309.1045181758@aardvark.icir.org> References: <15948.12985.565750.153895@ena-view3.cisco.com> <64309.1045181758@aardvark.icir.org> X-Mailer: VM 6.72 under 21.1 (patch 3) "Acadia" XEmacs Lucid Sender: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:24:32 -0800 (PST) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mark Handley states: > > > > >Note that i can't imagine having enough C-RPs to require a fragmented > >BSR message, nor why a fragment from one advertisement would still be > >zinging around a network after an entire period has passed. But > >that's how i've always interpreted the fragtag. > > > >I personally have never written an implementation that uses the same > >fragment tag ;) > > Rusty, > > The use of multiple fragments is required if you support admin scoping. > > - Mark Ok sure, that makes sense. thanks, - rusty _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Mon Feb 17 06:35:18 2003 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [204.57.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA20563 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 06:35:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HBX8t80178; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 03:33:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from atlantis.lkn.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de (atlantis.lkn.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de [129.187.9.137]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1HBUit80138 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 03:30:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from serdar@eikon.tum.de) Received: from lkn.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de (aperol.LKN.E-Technik.TU-Muenchen.DE [10.152.4.5]) by atlantis.lkn.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id h1HBUhU31864 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:30:43 +0100 Received: from eikon.tum.de (princeton [10.152.4.66]) by lkn.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de (8.12.6/8.12.6/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id h1HBUd9Y015132 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:30:39 +0100 Message-ID: <3E50C7DF.4090103@eikon.tum.de> From: Serdar Uezuemcue User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011126 Netscape6/6.2.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pim@catarina.usc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS - amavis-milter (http://www.amavis.org/) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by catarina.usc.edu id h1HBUit80138 Subject: [pim] Suse 7.3. Kernel 2.4.19 Sender: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:30:39 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi , i want to install the newest verion of pimd (...15) . The Kernelversion of my Suse is 2.4.19 I´ve attached the error message to this mail. Could anyone help me ? The last version (...13) have no errors on compiling or installing, but it doens`t work with the Kernel 2.4.19 . Because the Multicast Messages wouldn´t be forwarded. make --> Error : /root/pimd-2.1.0-alpha29.15/main.c:673 : undefined reference to `routing socket´ collect2:ld returned 1 exit status make:*** [pimd] Error1 _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Tue Feb 18 20:13:15 2003 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [204.57.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA13949 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 20:13:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1J1CgM18297; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:12:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from web40303.mail.yahoo.com (web40303.mail.yahoo.com [66.218.78.82]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id h1F0gut38190 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:42:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from vallepal@yahoo.com) Message-ID: <20030215004251.26662.qmail@web40303.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [206.54.51.125] by web40303.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:42:51 PST From: Sri V To: pim@catarina.usc.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: [pim] Checking for the subnet address on received packets. Sender: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:42:51 -0800 (PST) Is there any particular reason why PIM should be checking if the packet is originated on a local subnet for all the packets with 224.0.0.13 as the destination address. -S __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Tue Feb 18 20:13:17 2003 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [204.57.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA13962 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 20:13:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1J1D3M18318; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:13:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from xmxpita.excite.com (nn6.excitenetwork.com [207.159.120.60]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1H4TZt74941 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 20:29:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from smiley_raj@excite.com) Received: by xmxpita.excite.com (Postfix, from userid 110) id 0ECF9B711; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 23:29:23 -0500 (EST) To: pim@catarina.usc.edu Subject: Re: [pim] Query on Upstream(S,G,rpt) State machine for triggered messages Received: from [203.197.138.201] by xprdmailfe18.nwk.excite.com via HTTP; Sun, 16 Feb 2003 23:29:23 EST X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: ID = 60d69fc2429ac082130bd7435bf518fd Reply-To: smiley_raj@excite.com From: "smiley_raj@excite.com" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: smiley_raj@excite.com X-Mailer: PHP Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20030217042923.0ECF9B711@xmxpita.excite.com> Sender: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 23:29:23 -0500 (EST) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi pavlin, I have a doubt regarding the part A of your reply. I have asked this previously about periodic SG RPT prunes. Draft does not say that SG RPT prunes need to be sent when there is only (*,*, RP) state. rather it says that (S, G) RPT prunes are sent along with a (*, G) join. so when there is no state for (*, G) how can one send (S, G) RPT prunes. Please clarify me about this. Thanks in Advance. rajesh. --- On Wed 12/18, Pavlin Radoslavov < pavlin@icir.org > wrote: From: Pavlin Radoslavov [mailto: pavlin@icir.org] To: sarveshwarb@netplane.com Cc: pim@catarina.usc.edu Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 15:29:16 -0800 Subject: Re: [pim] Query on Upstream(S,G,rpt) State machine for triggered messages > Hi, > In the state machine for (S,G,rpt) triggered messages (Section 4.5.9) the > state tranistions from "RPTNotJoined" to "Not Pruned" occurs when > "inherited_olist(S,G,rpt)--> NON-NULL" and the reverse state tranistion from > "Not Pruned" to "RPTNotJoined" occurs when "RPTJoinDesired(G)-->False". My > question is why shouldnt we use the "RPTJoinDesired(G)--> TRUE" event for > the former state tranistion (i.e) from "RPTNotJoined" to "Not Pruned". > Doesnt this event itself convey that we have joined the RPT and thus should > be in the Not Pruned state? My guess is: (a) We want the "Not Pruned" to "RPTNotJoined" transaction to occur when "RPTJoinDesired(G)-->False", because the "RPTNotJoined" state is the equivalent of the state when we don't need the (S,G,rpt) state. Keeping the (S,G,rpt) state makes sense only if there is (*,G) or (*,*,RP) Join, hence the "granularity" of this transaction happening is "per (*,G)" or "per (*,*,RP)" (by "granularity" here I mean that it happens when there is (*,G) or (*,*,RP)-specific event such as (*,*,RP) or (*,G) Join). (b) The "RPTNotJoined" to "Not Pruned" transaction uses the "inherited_olist(S,G,rpt)--> NON-NULL" event, because for data forwarding purpose the granularity is "per source-group", and therefore it needs to consider things like "lost_assert(S,G,rpt)" which are used in the computation of "inherited_olist(S,G,rpt), but are NOT used in the computation of "RPTJoinDesired(G)" Regards, Pavlin _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Tue Feb 18 20:27:22 2003 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [204.57.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA14195 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 20:27:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1J1QFM18518; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:26:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from possum.icir.org (possum.icir.org [192.150.187.67]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1J1PwM18501 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:25:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pavlin@possum.icir.org) Received: from possum.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by possum.icir.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h1J1PwWx003975; Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:25:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pavlin@possum.icir.org) Message-Id: <200302190125.h1J1PwWx003975@possum.icir.org> To: smiley_raj@excite.com cc: pim@catarina.usc.edu Subject: Re: [pim] Query on Upstream(S,G,rpt) State machine for triggered messages In-Reply-To: Message from "smiley_raj@excite.com" of "Sun, 16 Feb 2003 23:29:23 EST." <20030217042923.0ECF9B711@xmxpita.excite.com> From: Pavlin Radoslavov Sender: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:25:58 -0800 > > Hi pavlin, > I have a doubt regarding the part A of your reply. I have asked this previously about periodic SG RPT prunes. > Draft does not say that SG RPT prunes need to be sent when there is only (*,*, RP) state. rather it says that (S, G) RPT prunes are sent along with a (*, G) join. so when there is no state for (*, G) how can one send (S, G) RPT prunes. > Please clarify me about this. > Thanks in Advance. > rajesh. If you are referring about Section 4.5.8 "(S,G,rpt) Periodic Messages", yes, the draft doesn't say that (S,G,rpt) Prunes are sent along with the (*,*,RP) Joins (when there are no (*,G) Joins). I believe this is an omission in the draft that is pending to be resolved. Thanks, Pavlin > > > > > --- On Wed 12/18, Pavlin Radoslavov < pavlin@icir.org > wrote: > From: Pavlin Radoslavov [mailto: pavlin@icir.org] > To: sarveshwarb@netplane.com > Cc: pim@catarina.usc.edu > Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 15:29:16 -0800 > Subject: Re: [pim] Query on Upstream(S,G,rpt) State machine for triggered messages > > > Hi, > > In the state machine for (S,G,rpt) triggered messages (Section 4.5.9) the > > state tranistions from "RPTNotJoined" to "Not Pruned" occurs when > > "inherited_olist(S,G,rpt)--> NON-NULL" and the reverse state tranistion from > > "Not Pruned" to "RPTNotJoined" occurs when "RPTJoinDesired(G)-->False". My > > question is why shouldnt we use the "RPTJoinDesired(G)--> TRUE" event for > > the former state tranistion (i.e) from "RPTNotJoined" to "Not Pruned". > > Doesnt this event itself convey that we have joined the RPT and thus should > > be in the Not Pruned state? > > My guess is: > > (a) We want the "Not Pruned" to "RPTNotJoined" transaction to occur > when "RPTJoinDesired(G)-->False", because the "RPTNotJoined" state > is the equivalent of the state when we don't need the (S,G,rpt) > state. Keeping the (S,G,rpt) state makes sense only if there is > (*,G) or (*,*,RP) Join, hence the "granularity" of this > transaction happening is "per (*,G)" or "per (*,*,RP)" > (by "granularity" here I mean that it happens when there is (*,G) > or (*,*,RP)-specific event such as (*,*,RP) or (*,G) Join). > > (b) The "RPTNotJoined" to "Not Pruned" transaction uses the > "inherited_olist(S,G,rpt)--> NON-NULL" event, because for > data forwarding purpose the granularity is "per source-group", and > therefore it needs to consider things like "lost_assert(S,G,rpt)" > which are used in the computation of "inherited_olist(S,G,rpt), > but are NOT used in the computation of "RPTJoinDesired(G)" > > Regards, > Pavlin > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@catarina.usc.edu > http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim > > > _______________________________________________ > Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com > The most personalized portal on the Web! > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@catarina.usc.edu > http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Thu Feb 20 20:27:09 2003 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [204.57.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA05830 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 20:27:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1L1PvM53228; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 17:25:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from v6.hitachi.co.jp (galilei.v6.hitachi.co.jp [133.145.167.4]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1L1NKM53187 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 17:23:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from suz@crl.hitachi.co.jp) Received: from s30.crl.hitachi.co.jp (galilei.v6.hitachi.co.jp [133.145.167.4]) by v6.hitachi.co.jp (8.12.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1L1U6uT080608; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:30:07 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from suz@crl.hitachi.co.jp) Message-ID: From: SUZUKI Shinsuke To: pim@catarina.usc.edu Cc: suz@crl.hitachi.co.jp Subject: Re: [pim] Call for agenda items for PIM WG in San Francisco X-cite: xcite 1.33 In-Reply-To: References: <200302052347.h15NlgV02935@liming-pc.redback.com> <200302071820.h17IKpK13788@liming-pc.redback.com> User-Agent: User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.11.2 (Wonderwall) Emacs/21.1 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) Organization: Network Architecture Research Dept., Central Research Laboratory, Hitachi, Ltd, Japan MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.4 - "Hosorogi") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Sender: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:22:44 +0900 Hello all, >>> At Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:22:33 +0900 >>> jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp(JINMEI Tatuya / $B?@L@C#:H(B) said: >>>>> On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 10:20:51 -0800 (PST), >>>>> Liming Wei said: >> Can you post your document here before the meeting week ? At least >> send it to Tom and myself before the meeting. > Yes, we're almost done on making the draft. We'll submit it before > the cut-off date for initial submissions (Feb 24). It is available as draft-suz-pim-upstream-detection-00.txt. This memo describes - a PIM routing problem owing to the reverse path forwarding y (RPF) failure on routers having multiple addresses on a link. (quite possible in IPv6, but theoretically possible in IPv4 too) address-A1 PIM neighbor = address-A1 address-A2 next-hop to S = address-A2 S----router-A ------|------- router-B - possible four solutions with their pros and cons. What I want to ask regarding the direction of this document is the following two things (I'll ask in San Francisco again). - Currently it doesn't select the best solution from the possible ones. Should it be determined in this draft, or should it be left to implementations? Personally I prefer a new PIM Hello Option and a operational measure, - Should it be merged into PIM-SM/DM base spec, or should it be a separate document? In terms of document management, separate document would be better, but I don't have so strong opinion on this part. Other comments/suggestions are welcome, of course. Thanks, ---- SUZUKI, Shinsuke @ Hitachi / KAME Project _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Thu Feb 20 23:38:14 2003 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [204.57.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA09171 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:38:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1L4ZdM55365; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 20:35:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from possum.icir.org (possum.icir.org [192.150.187.67]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1L4YZM55340 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 20:34:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pavlin@possum.icir.org) Received: from possum.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by possum.icir.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h1L4YYWx023977; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 20:34:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pavlin@possum.icir.org) Message-Id: <200302210434.h1L4YYWx023977@possum.icir.org> To: SUZUKI Shinsuke cc: pim@catarina.usc.edu Subject: Re: [pim] Call for agenda items for PIM WG in San Francisco In-Reply-To: Message from SUZUKI Shinsuke of "Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:22:44 +0900." From: Pavlin Radoslavov Sender: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 20:34:34 -0800 > >> Can you post your document here before the meeting week ? At least > >> send it to Tom and myself before the meeting. > > > Yes, we're almost done on making the draft. We'll submit it before > > the cut-off date for initial submissions (Feb 24). > > It is available as draft-suz-pim-upstream-detection-00.txt. > > This memo describes > - a PIM routing problem owing to the reverse path forwarding > y (RPF) failure on routers having multiple addresses on a link. > (quite possible in IPv6, but theoretically possible in IPv4 too) > > address-A1 PIM neighbor = address-A1 > address-A2 next-hop to S = address-A2 > S----router-A ------|------- router-B > > - possible four solutions with their pros and cons. > > > What I want to ask regarding the direction of this document is the > following two things (I'll ask in San Francisco again). > > - Currently it doesn't select the best solution from the > possible ones. Should it be determined in this draft, or > should it be left to implementations? > Personally I prefer a new PIM Hello Option and a > operational measure, > > - Should it be merged into PIM-SM/DM base spec, or should it > be a separate document? > In terms of document management, separate document > would be better, but I don't have so strong opinion on > this part. In addition to the proposed four solutions in the draft, I'd like to suggest one more: If a PIM router has more than one IP address on an interface, it should send a Hello messages for each IP address (using that address as the source address of the IP packet). This will create the appropriate neighborhood state in all other PIM routers on that LAN, and will eliminate the problem. However, some of those Hello messages may originate from an address that is not link-local address, hence the PIM spec needs to be loosen a bit to allow that. Though, personally I'd prefer the new PIM Hello Option solution, because it is cleaner and explicit, and doesn't require loosening the protocol rules. Regards, Pavlin _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Fri Feb 28 20:36:38 2003 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [204.57.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA19627 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 20:36:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h211X9l01842; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:33:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from web14602.mail.yahoo.com (web14602.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.224.82]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id h1SHaSM86987 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:36:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from shangchao1@yahoo.com) Message-ID: <20030228173628.11422.qmail@web14602.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [218.30.19.116] by web14602.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:36:28 PST From: ShangChao To: pim@catarina.usc.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-406459812-1046453788=:8236" Subject: [pim] help Sender: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:36:28 -0800 (PST) --0-406459812-1046453788=:8236 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Dear Sir: I have got a problem and need your help. My network structure: eth0----------(eth1)Router(eth2)----------eth3 10.1.1.3 10.1.1.2 211.71.69.137 211.71.69.140 The router and hosts are running on FreeBSD 4.6; I have installed multicast server program in eth0 and multicast client program in eth3 and pimd-2.1.0-alpha29.16 in the router. The multicast group I defined is 224.77.11.6 The problem is that when eth0 send out packets, eth3 can't receive. I am sure that the malfunction is in the router. Can you tell me how to write my pimd.conf and what else should I do to make the router correctly forward multicast packets? Thank you. Best regards Shang Chao 2/28/2003 --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more --0-406459812-1046453788=:8236 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

Dear Sir:
    I have got a problem and need your help.   
    My network structure:  
           eth0----------(eth1)Router(eth2)----------eth3
        10.1.1.3     10.1.1.2   211.71.69.137   211.71.69.140
    The router and hosts are running on FreeBSD 4.6; I have installed multicast server program in eth0 and multicast client program in eth3 and pimd-2.1.0-alpha29.16 in the router. The multicast group I defined is 224.77.11.6
    The problem is that when eth0 send out packets, eth3 can't receive. I am sure that the malfunction is in the router. Can you tell me how to write my pimd.conf and what else should I do to make the router correctly forward multicast packets?
    Thank you.
    Best regards
 !    Shang Chao
    2/28/2003

 


Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more --0-406459812-1046453788=:8236-- _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim