From 558-mailing-list-admin@catarina.usc.edu Tue Apr 1 08:13:55 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 IAA09007 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 08:13:54 -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 h31DFpu81196 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2003 05:15:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from 558-mailing-list-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 05:15:51 -0800 Message-ID: <20030401131551.77028.14748.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 Sat Apr 5 11:30:00 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 LAA10249 for ; Sat, 5 Apr 2003 11:30:00 -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 h35GT0u95762; Sat, 5 Apr 2003 08:29:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from hotmail.com (oe30.law11.hotmail.com [64.4.16.87]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h35GO6u95678 for ; Sat, 5 Apr 2003 08:24:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from isalekul@hotmail.com) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 5 Apr 2003 08:24:00 -0800 Received: from 172.153.244.194 by oe30.law11.hotmail.com with DAV; Sat, 05 Apr 2003 16:24:00 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [172.153.244.194] X-Originating-Email: [isalekul@hotmail.com] From: "Salekul Islam" To: Cc: "Sagor" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004D_01C2FB66.545CD080" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Apr 2003 16:24:00.0904 (UTC) FILETIME=[C41EC080:01C2FB8F] Subject: [pim] Security Issues 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: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 11:27:23 -0500 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_004D_01C2FB66.545CD080 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I have two questions and I am expecting someone will answer these = questions. 1. In PIM-SM Spec it is said about authenticating link-local messages = that "The IPsec [12] transport mode using the Authentication Header (AH) = is the recommended method to prevent the above attacks against PIM". = These link-local messages are sent and received by PIM routers. But I = have found in IPsec document that trasnsport mode can be used between = two hosts only. If we want to use IPsec between two gateways(routers) we = have to implement IPsec tunnel mode. In that case how can we implement = trasnport mode here? 2. In security section it is receommended that one SA should be used to = protect all the link-local messages. My point is that nothing is = mentioned about how to protect multicast data. As far my understanding = we need another SA among the sender(s) and receiver(s) to protect = mulicast data. When a sender sends data to multicast group it will use = the later SA and only the receivers will be able to decrypt the data = (not the intermediate routers). Intermediate routers will only by-pass = these data packets. Thanks for your consideration and waiting for someone response. Salekul =20 ------=_NextPart_000_004D_01C2FB66.545CD080 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,
 
I have two questions and I am expecting = someone=20 will answer these questions.
 
1. In PIM-SM Spec it is said about = authenticating=20 link-local messages that "The IPsec [12] transport mode using the = Authentication=20 Header (AH) is the recommended method to prevent the above attacks = against PIM".=20 These link-local messages are sent and received by PIM routers. But I = have found=20 in IPsec document that trasnsport mode can be used between two hosts = only. If we=20 want to use IPsec between two gateways(routers) we have to implement = IPsec=20 tunnel mode. In that case how can we implement trasnport mode = here?
 
2. In security section it is = receommended that one=20 SA should be used to protect all the link-local messages. My point = is that=20 nothing is mentioned about how to protect multicast data. As far my=20 understanding we need another SA among the sender(s) and receiver(s) to = protect=20 mulicast data. When a sender sends data to multicast group it will = use the=20 later SA and only the receivers will be able to decrypt the data = (not the=20 intermediate routers). Intermediate routers will only by-pass these data = packets.
 
Thanks for your consideration and = waiting for=20 someone response.
 
Salekul  
------=_NextPart_000_004D_01C2FB66.545CD080-- _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Sat Apr 5 16:30:47 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 QAA15002 for ; Sat, 5 Apr 2003 16:30:47 -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 h35LUOu01229; Sat, 5 Apr 2003 13:30:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from multicasttech.com (IDENT:root@lennon.multicasttech.com [63.105.122.7]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h35LRNu01158 for ; Sat, 5 Apr 2003 13:27:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tme@multicasttech.com) Received: from [68.100.8.94] (account marshall_eubanks HELO localhost) by multicasttech.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 1672529; Sat, 05 Apr 2003 15:55:49 -0500 Subject: Re: [pim] Security Issues Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-1-395584544 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v482) Cc: To: "Salekul Islam" From: Marshall Eubanks In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <119E87CA-679A-11D7-A151-0003936A0D40@multicasttech.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.482) 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: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 14:09:04 -0500 --Apple-Mail-1-395584544 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello; I will take a shot at this. On Saturday, April 5, 2003, at 11:27 AM, Salekul Islam wrote: > Hi, > =A0 > I have two questions and I am expecting someone will answer these=20 > questions. > =A0 > 1. In PIM-SM Spec it is said about authenticating link-local messages=20= > that "The IPsec [12] transport mode using the Authentication Header=20 > (AH) is the recommended method to prevent the above attacks against=20 > PIM". These link-local messages are sent and received by PIM routers.=20= > But I have found in IPsec document that trasnsport mode can be used=20 > between two hosts only. If we want to use IPsec between two=20 > gateways(routers) we have to implement IPsec tunnel mode. In that case=20= > how can we implement trasnport mode here? > My understanding is that in this use of AH for ttl =3D 1 communications=20= between PIM routers, the routers are the end hosts. (This is not to protect a=20 flow from end to end, only on each hop independently.) > =A0 > 2. In security section it is receommended that one SA should be used = to=20 > protect all the link-local messages.=A0My point is that nothing is=20 > mentioned about how to protect multicast data. As far my understanding=20= > we need another SA among the sender(s) and receiver(s) to protect=20 > mulicast data.=A0When a sender sends data to multicast group it will = use=20 > the later SA and only=A0the receivers will be able to decrypt the data=20= > (not the intermediate routers). Intermediate routers will only by-pass=20= > these data packets. Protection of one to many or many to many group communications is not=20 trivial and is not fully solved. It is also not part of the PIM charter. However, there is active work=20 going on in the arena, and solutions for pieces of the puzzle, such as=20= TESLA; you should look at the MSEC and GSEC charters and the drafts=20 referenced there. http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/msec-charter.html http://www.irtf.org/charters/gsec.html Regards Marshall Eubanks T.M. Eubanks Multicast Technologies, Inc. e-mail : tme@multicasttech.com http://www.multicasttech.com Our New Multicast Workshop : http://www.multicasttech.com/workshop > =A0 > Thanks for your consideration and waiting for someone response. > =A0 > Salekul=A0=A0 --Apple-Mail-1-395584544 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello; I will take a shot at this. On Saturday, April 5, 2003, at 11:27 AM, Salekul Islam wrote: = ArialHi, =A0 ArialI have two questions and I am expecting someone will answer these questions. =A0 Arial1. In PIM-SM Spec it is said about authenticating link-local messages that "The IPsec [12] transport mode using the Authentication Header (AH) is the recommended method to prevent the above attacks against PIM". These link-local messages are sent and received by PIM routers. But I have found in IPsec document that trasnsport mode can be used between two hosts only. If we want to use IPsec between two gateways(routers) we have to implement IPsec tunnel mode. In that case how can we implement trasnport mode here? My understanding is that in this use of AH for ttl =3D 1 communications between PIM routers, the routers are the end hosts. (This is not to protect a flow from end to end, only on each hop independently.) =A0 Arial2. In security section it is receommended that one SA should be used to protect all the link-local messages.=A0My point is that nothing is mentioned about how to protect multicast data. As far my understanding we need another SA among the sender(s) and receiver(s) to protect mulicast data.=A0When a sender sends data to multicast group it will use the later SA and only=A0the receivers will be able to decrypt the data (not the intermediate routers). Intermediate routers will only by-pass these data packets. = Arial= Protection of one to many or many to many group communications is not trivial and is not fully solved. It is also not part of the PIM charter. However, there is active work going on in the arena, and solutions for pieces of the puzzle, such as TESLA; you should look at the MSEC and GSEC charters and the drafts referenced there. http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/msec-charter.html http://www.irtf.org/charters/gsec.html Regards Marshall Eubanks T.M. Eubanks Multicast Technologies, Inc. e-mail : tme@multicasttech.com = 1A1A,1A1A,FFFFhttp://www.multicasttech.co= m Our New Multicast Workshop : = 1A1A,1A1A,FFFFhttp://www.multicasttech.co= m/workshop Arial =A0 ArialThanks for your consideration and waiting for someone response. =A0 = ArialSalekul=A0=A0 = --Apple-Mail-1-395584544-- _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Mon Apr 7 14:40:11 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 OAA00362 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2003 14:40:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h37Ibiu51369; Mon, 7 Apr 2003 11:37:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h37IXZu51281 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2003 11:33:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pusateri@juniper.net) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h37IXTS69966 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2003 11:33:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pusateri@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200304071833.h37IXTS69966@merlot.juniper.net> To: pim@catarina.usc.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <69475.1049740409.1@juniper.net> From: Tom Pusateri Subject: [pim] PIM hello option numbers 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, 07 Apr 2003 11:33:29 -0700 While looking into getting a new option number assigned for the neighbor address list hello option, I looked at the current PIM sparse mode draft regarding option number assignments. It defines the following: 1 - Holdtime 2 - LAN Prune delay 3 - 16 reserved for future versions of this document 18 - deprecated 19 - DR priority 20 - generation ID 17 - 65000 assigned by IANA 65001 - 65535 reserved for private use The bi-dir spec defines 22 - bi-dir capable So this means that 17 and 21 are un-accounted for. If anyone has any knowledge of their whereabouts, please let us know. Also, I think the spec should be changed to say that 23-65000 should be assigned by IANA instead of 17-65000. Dave Meyer and I are pursuing getting IANA set up to assign 23 - 65000 and we'll use the neighbor list option as a test of the process. Thanks, Tom _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Mon Apr 7 14:58:33 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 OAA00805 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2003 14:58:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h37IvRu51863; Mon, 7 Apr 2003 11:57:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h37ItYu51821 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2003 11:55:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ycai@cisco.com) Received: from cisco.com (cypher.cisco.com [171.69.11.143]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h37ItR9X015091; Mon, 7 Apr 2003 11:55:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from ycai@localhost) by cisco.com (8.8.8/2.6/Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) id LAA17530; Mon, 7 Apr 2003 11:55:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200304071855.LAA17530@cisco.com> From: Yiqun Cai To: pusateri@juniper.net CC: pim@catarina.usc.edu In-reply-to: <200304071833.h37IXTS69966@merlot.juniper.net> (message from Tom Pusateri on Mon, 07 Apr 2003 11:33:29 -0700) Subject: Re: [pim] PIM hello option numbers Reply-to: ycai@cisco.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: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 11:55:27 -0700 (PDT) Tom, Dave gave me this URL shortly after the IETF that we resolved the conflicts between option 18 and 19. http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/pim-hello-options Here are the numbers assigned from the URL: Value Length Name References ----- ------ ---- ---------- 1 2 Hold Time [RFC2362] 2-16 - Reserved [RFC2362] 17 16 Label Parameters (renew 8/01) [Farinacci] 18 - Deprecated 19 4 DR Priority (renew 8/01) [Fenner] 20 4 Generation ID (renew 8/01) [Fenner] 21 4 State-Refresh (renew 8/01) [Kouvelas] 22 0 Bidirectional Capable (renew 8/01) [Kouvelas] 23 1 VCI Capability (renew 8/01) [Farinacci] Combining with the list you mentioned, how about letting IANA assign 24-65000, instead of 23-65000? Thanks. > > While looking into getting a new option number assigned for the > neighbor address list hello option, I looked at the current PIM sparse > mode draft regarding option number assignments. > > It defines the following: > > 1 - Holdtime > 2 - LAN Prune delay > 3 - 16 reserved for future versions of this document > > 18 - deprecated > 19 - DR priority > 20 - generation ID > > 17 - 65000 assigned by IANA > 65001 - 65535 reserved for private use > > The bi-dir spec defines > > 22 - bi-dir capable > > So this means that 17 and 21 are un-accounted for. If anyone has any > knowledge of their whereabouts, please let us know. > > Also, I think the spec should be changed to say that 23-65000 should be > assigned by IANA instead of 17-65000. Dave Meyer and I are pursuing > getting IANA set up to assign 23 - 65000 and we'll use the neighbor list > option as a test of the process. > > Thanks, > Tom > > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@catarina.usc.edu > http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim > -- Yiqun _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Mon Apr 7 15:00:32 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 PAA00939 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2003 15:00:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h37IxIu51925; Mon, 7 Apr 2003 11:59:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from gate1.itt.com (gate1.itt.com [151.190.254.100]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id h37IvWu51871 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2003 11:57:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Jonathan.Nicholas@itt.com) Received: from no.name.available by gate1.itt.com via smtpd (for catarina.usc.edu [204.57.0.1]) with SMTP; 7 Apr 2003 18:57:32 UT Received: by fwdcmail2.fwdc.de.ittind.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2BS3BQMF>; Mon, 7 Apr 2003 13:57:31 -0500 Message-ID: <2CA4524FA012F14BAE5D896D492B3868029400@ACDNJMAILSRV02.acd.de.ittind.com> From: "Nicholas, Jonathan" To: Tom Pusateri , pim@catarina.usc.edu Subject: RE: [pim] PIM hello option numbers MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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, 7 Apr 2003 13:57:21 -0500 21 is used for PIM-DM State Refresh Jon > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Pusateri [mailto:pusateri@juniper.net] > Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 2:33 PM > To: pim@catarina.usc.edu > Subject: [pim] PIM hello option numbers > > > While looking into getting a new option number assigned for the > neighbor address list hello option, I looked at the current PIM sparse > mode draft regarding option number assignments. > > It defines the following: > > 1 - Holdtime > 2 - LAN Prune delay > 3 - 16 reserved for future versions of this document > > 18 - deprecated > 19 - DR priority > 20 - generation ID > > 17 - 65000 assigned by IANA > 65001 - 65535 reserved for private use > > The bi-dir spec defines > > 22 - bi-dir capable > > So this means that 17 and 21 are un-accounted for. If anyone has any > knowledge of their whereabouts, please let us know. > > Also, I think the spec should be changed to say that 23-65000 > should be > assigned by IANA instead of 17-65000. Dave Meyer and I are pursuing > getting IANA set up to assign 23 - 65000 and we'll use the > neighbor list > option as a test of the process. > > Thanks, > Tom > > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@catarina.usc.edu > http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim > ************************************ If this email is not intended for you, or you are not responsible for the delivery of this message to the addressee, please note that this message may contain ITT Privileged/Proprietary Information. In such a case, you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. You should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Information contained in this message that does not relate to the business of ITT is neither endorsed by nor attributable to ITT. ************************************ _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Mon Apr 7 15:29:25 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 PAA03158 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2003 15:29:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h37JR0u52538; Mon, 7 Apr 2003 12:27:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from merlot.juniper.net (natint.juniper.net [207.17.136.129]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h37JOtu52485 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2003 12:24:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pusateri@juniper.net) Received: from juniper.net (garnet.juniper.net [172.17.28.17]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h37JOiS74898; Mon, 7 Apr 2003 12:24:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pusateri@juniper.net) Message-Id: <200304071924.h37JOiS74898@merlot.juniper.net> To: ycai@cisco.com cc: pusateri@juniper.net, pim@catarina.usc.edu, pusateri@juniper.net Subject: Re: [pim] PIM hello option numbers In-Reply-To: Message from Yiqun Cai of "Mon, 07 Apr 2003 11:55:27 PDT." <200304071855.LAA17530@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <88322.1049743484.1@juniper.net> From: Tom Pusateri 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, 07 Apr 2003 12:24:44 -0700 Excellent. We'll have IANA start at 24 then. Thanks, Tom In message <200304071855.LAA17530@cisco.com> you write: > >Tom, > >Dave gave me this URL shortly after the IETF that we resolved >the conflicts between option 18 and 19. > > http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/pim-hello-options > >Here are the numbers assigned from the URL: > >Value Length Name References >----- ------ ---- ---------- > 1 2 Hold Time [RFC2362] > 2-16 - Reserved [RFC2362] > 17 16 Label Parameters (renew 8/01) [Farinacci] > 18 - Deprecated > 19 4 DR Priority (renew 8/01) [Fenner] > 20 4 Generation ID (renew 8/01) [Fenner] > 21 4 State-Refresh (renew 8/01) [Kouvelas] > 22 0 Bidirectional Capable (renew 8/01) [Kouvelas] > 23 1 VCI Capability (renew 8/01) [Farinacci] > >Combining with the list you mentioned, how about letting IANA assign >24-65000, instead of 23-65000? > >Thanks. > >> >> While looking into getting a new option number assigned for the >> neighbor address list hello option, I looked at the current PIM sparse >> mode draft regarding option number assignments. >> >> It defines the following: >> >> 1 - Holdtime >> 2 - LAN Prune delay >> 3 - 16 reserved for future versions of this document >> >> 18 - deprecated >> 19 - DR priority >> 20 - generation ID >> >> 17 - 65000 assigned by IANA >> 65001 - 65535 reserved for private use >> >> The bi-dir spec defines >> >> 22 - bi-dir capable >> >> So this means that 17 and 21 are un-accounted for. If anyone has any >> knowledge of their whereabouts, please let us know. >> >> Also, I think the spec should be changed to say that 23-65000 should be >> assigned by IANA instead of 17-65000. Dave Meyer and I are pursuing >> getting IANA set up to assign 23 - 65000 and we'll use the neighbor list >> option as a test of the process. >> >> Thanks, >> Tom >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pim mailing list >> pim@catarina.usc.edu >> http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim >> > > >-- >Yiqun _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Mon Apr 7 20:27:45 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 UAA11833 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2003 20:27:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h380G7u58039; Mon, 7 Apr 2003 17:16:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from sith.maoz.com (sith.maoz.com [205.167.76.10]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h37JKku52395 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2003 12:20:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dmm@sith.maoz.com) Received: (from dmm@localhost) by sith.maoz.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h37JLCrR028807; Mon, 7 Apr 2003 12:21:12 -0700 From: David Meyer To: Yiqun Cai Cc: pusateri@juniper.net, pim@catarina.usc.edu Subject: Re: [pim] PIM hello option numbers Message-ID: <20030407122112.A28396@sprint.net> References: <200304071833.h37IXTS69966@merlot.juniper.net> <200304071855.LAA17530@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <200304071855.LAA17530@cisco.com>; from ycai@cisco.com on Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 11:55:27AM -0700 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, 7 Apr 2003 12:21:12 -0700 >> Dave gave me this URL shortly after the IETF that we resolved >> the conflicts between option 18 and 19. Ack, I forgot I already did some of this. Thanks Yiqun. Dave >> >> http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/pim-hello-options >> >> Here are the numbers assigned from the URL: >> >> Value Length Name References >> ----- ------ ---- ---------- >> 1 2 Hold Time [RFC2362] >> 2-16 - Reserved [RFC2362] >> 17 16 Label Parameters (renew 8/01) [Farinacci] >> 18 - Deprecated >> 19 4 DR Priority (renew 8/01) [Fenner] >> 20 4 Generation ID (renew 8/01) [Fenner] >> 21 4 State-Refresh (renew 8/01) [Kouvelas] >> 22 0 Bidirectional Capable (renew 8/01) [Kouvelas] >> 23 1 VCI Capability (renew 8/01) [Farinacci] >> >> Combining with the list you mentioned, how about letting IANA assign >> 24-65000, instead of 23-65000? >> >> Thanks. >> >> > >> > While looking into getting a new option number assigned for the >> > neighbor address list hello option, I looked at the current PIM sparse >> > mode draft regarding option number assignments. >> > >> > It defines the following: >> > >> > 1 - Holdtime >> > 2 - LAN Prune delay >> > 3 - 16 reserved for future versions of this document >> > >> > 18 - deprecated >> > 19 - DR priority >> > 20 - generation ID >> > >> > 17 - 65000 assigned by IANA >> > 65001 - 65535 reserved for private use >> > >> > The bi-dir spec defines >> > >> > 22 - bi-dir capable >> > >> > So this means that 17 and 21 are un-accounted for. If anyone has any >> > knowledge of their whereabouts, please let us know. >> > >> > Also, I think the spec should be changed to say that 23-65000 should be >> > assigned by IANA instead of 17-65000. Dave Meyer and I are pursuing >> > getting IANA set up to assign 23 - 65000 and we'll use the neighbor list >> > option as a test of the process. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Tom >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > pim mailing list >> > pim@catarina.usc.edu >> > http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim >> > >> >> >> -- >> Yiqun >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Apr 8 20:42:34 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 UAA09913 for ; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 20:42:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h390fVu85478; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 17:41:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from fsnt.future.futsoft.com ([203.197.140.35]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h384oRu63228 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2003 21:50:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from vanithar@future.futsoft.com) Received: from kailash.future.futsoft.com (unverified) by fsnt.future.futsoft.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id for ; Tue, 08 Apr 2003 10:28:21 +0530 Received: from vanithar (vanithar.future.futsoft.com [10.8.7.47]) by kailash.future.futsoft.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with SMTP id h384li2c021201 for ; Tue, 8 Apr 2003 10:17:44 +0530 Reply-To: From: "Vanitha Ramaswami" To: Message-Id: <000b01c2fd87$e5158400$2f07080a@future.futsoft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [pim] Help Required in PIM Entry & Oif Timer Expiry Handling 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, 8 Apr 2003 10:02:41 +0530 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All, We have an RFC 2362 version of PIM-SM. A condition, where in both the Oif Timer and the Entry Timer expires at the same time is happening. When an Oif Timer expires for a (*,G) entry, a (*,G) prune is sent upstream. Some times it so happens that the Entry Timer expires before the Oif Timer. To handle this case a (*,G) prune is sent upstream on entry timer expiry if that Oif is in the forwarding state. My doubt is do we need to do the same for (S,G)RPT entry also. i.e send (S,G)RPT prune upstream for (S,G) RPT entry as well when the entry timer expires.?. How is it normally done.?. Thanks, Vanitha *************************************************************************** This message is proprietary to Future Software Limited (FSL) and is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged or confidential information and should not be circulated or used for any purpose other than for what it is intended. If you have received this message in error, please notify the originator immediately. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that you are strictly prohibited from using, copying, altering, or disclosing the contents of this message. FSL accepts no responsibility for loss or damage arising from the use of the information transmitted by this email including damage from virus. *************************************************************************** _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Wed Apr 9 13:37:08 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 NAA07302 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 13:37:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h39HaRu04387; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 10:36:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from mailhost.iprg.nokia.com (mailhost.iprg.nokia.com [205.226.5.12]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h39HXeu04317 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 10:33:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Rahul.Bahadur@nokia.com) Received: from darkstar.iprg.nokia.com (darkstar.iprg.nokia.com [205.226.5.69]) by mailhost.iprg.nokia.com (8.9.3/8.9.3-GLGS) with ESMTP id KAA15697; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 10:33:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by darkstar.iprg.nokia.com (8.11.0/8.11.0-DARKSTAR) id h39HXWQ24362; Wed, 9 Apr 2003 10:33:32 -0700 X-mProtect: <200304091733> Nokia Silicon Valley Messaging Protection Received: from UNKNOWN (172.19.74.182, claiming to be "dadhcp-172019074182.americas.nokia.com") by darkstar.iprg.nokia.com smtpdcIaIcS; Wed, 09 Apr 2003 10:33:30 PDT Subject: Re: [pim] Help Required in PIM Entry & Oif Timer Expiry Handling From: Rahul Bahadur To: vanithar@future.futsoft.com Cc: pim@catarina.usc.edu In-Reply-To: <000b01c2fd87$e5158400$2f07080a@future.futsoft.com> References: <000b01c2fd87$e5158400$2f07080a@future.futsoft.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.3 (1.0.3-6) Message-Id: <1049909610.1671.7.camel@dadhcp-172019074182.americas.nokia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 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: 09 Apr 2003 10:33:30 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Instead of sending a prune it might be easier to silently delete (*,G) and/or (S,G) entries that have expired due to inactivity. If source(s) start sending data before the holdtime of the corresponding prune(s) have expired in upstream routers, it will result in temporary suppression of desired traffic. Rahul On Mon, 2003-04-07 at 21:32, ext Vanitha Ramaswami wrote: > Hi All, > > We have an RFC 2362 version of PIM-SM. A condition, where in both the Oif > Timer and the Entry Timer expires at the same time is happening. When an > Oif Timer expires for a (*,G) entry, a (*,G) prune is sent upstream. Some > times it so happens that the Entry Timer expires before the Oif Timer. To > handle this case a (*,G) prune is sent upstream on entry timer expiry if > that Oif is in the forwarding state. > > My doubt is do we need to do the same for (S,G)RPT entry also. i.e send > (S,G)RPT prune upstream for (S,G) RPT entry as well when the entry timer > expires.?. How is it normally done.?. > > > Thanks, > Vanitha > > *************************************************************************** > This message is proprietary to Future Software Limited (FSL) > and is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it > is addressed. It may contain privileged or confidential information > and should not be circulated or used for any purpose other than for > what it is intended. > > If you have received this message in error, please notify the > originator immediately. If you are not the intended recipient, > you are notified that you are strictly prohibited from using, > copying, altering, or disclosing the contents of this message. > FSL accepts no responsibility for loss or damage arising from > the use of the information transmitted by this email including > damage from virus. > *************************************************************************** > _______________________________________________ > 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 Apr 14 14:10:02 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 OAA14733 for ; Mon, 14 Apr 2003 14:10:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3EI8hu35617; Mon, 14 Apr 2003 11:08:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from hotmail.com (oe45.law11.hotmail.com [64.4.16.17]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3EI4Qu35522 for ; Mon, 14 Apr 2003 11:04:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from isalekul@hotmail.com) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 14 Apr 2003 11:04:21 -0700 Received: from 172.149.18.217 by Law11-OE45.adinternal.hotmail.com with DAV; Mon, 14 Apr 2003 18:04:21 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [172.149.18.217] X-Originating-Email: [isalekul@hotmail.com] From: "Salekul Islam" To: Cc: "Sagor" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002C_01C3028F.33846780" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Apr 2003 18:04:21.0401 (UTC) FILETIME=[46557090:01C302B0] Subject: [pim] Authenticatng link-local messages 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, 14 Apr 2003 14:07:36 -0400 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002C_01C3028F.33846780 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I have two questions related to authenticating link-local messages. I am = expecting that someone will make me clear. 1. In PIM-SM spec it is suggested that we should use IPsec AH to protect = link-local messages. It is also said that all link-local messages use = SPI =3D 0. As far my understanding, we are using one SA to protect all = the link-local messages and for these messages the destination address = is 224.0.0.13 and it is fixed. SPI, destination address and specific = protocol are used to differentiate a particular SA from more than one = SAs. In this case we are using one SA for all link-local messages and = all the time their destination address is fixed. That's why we don't = need any SPI value to differentiate this SA. And this is the reason that = SPI =3D 0 is used. Am I correct or missing something? 2. in PIM-SM spec it is assumed that the netowrk admin will configure = all the PIM routers manually with one or more SAs. I think we have some = overhead here. Shall we configure all the routers blindly? How do one = know which routers are going to be used ?=20 If we want to use any negotiating protocol to establish the SAs, when = these routers will be configured?=20 Thanking you Salekul ------=_NextPart_000_002C_01C3028F.33846780 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,
 
I have two questions related to = authenticating=20 link-local messages. I am expecting that someone will make me=20 clear.
 
1. In PIM-SM spec it is suggested that = we should=20 use IPsec AH to protect link-local messages. It is also said that all = link-local=20 messages use SPI =3D 0. As far my understanding, we are using one SA to = protect=20 all the link-local messages and for these messages the destination = address is=20 224.0.0.13 and it is fixed. SPI, destination address and specific=20 protocol are used to differentiate a particular SA from = more than=20 one SAs. In this case we are using one SA for all link-local messages = and all=20 the time their destination address is fixed. That's why we don't need = any SPI=20 value to differentiate this SA. And this is the reason that SPI =3D 0 is = used. Am=20 I correct or missing something?
 
2. in PIM-SM spec it is assumed that = the netowrk=20 admin will configure all the PIM routers manually with one or more SAs. = I think=20 we have some overhead here. Shall we configure all the routers blindly? = How do=20 one know which routers are going to be used ?
 
If we want to use any negotiating = protocol to=20 establish the SAs, when these routers will be configured?
 
Thanking you
 
Salekul
------=_NextPart_000_002C_01C3028F.33846780-- _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Wed Apr 16 01:26:57 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 BAA23134 for ; Wed, 16 Apr 2003 01:26:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3G5Opu73645; Tue, 15 Apr 2003 22:24:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from prue.eim.surrey.ac.uk (IDENT:exim@prue.eim.surrey.ac.uk [131.227.76.5]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3FAgwu53581 for ; Tue, 15 Apr 2003 03:42:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from n.wang@eim.surrey.ac.uk) Received: from ccsrlt21.ee.surrey.ac.uk ([131.227.89.171] helo=eim.surrey.ac.uk ident=eep3nw) by prue.eim.surrey.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #4) id 195NtE-0003AL-00 for pim@catarina.usc.edu; Tue, 15 Apr 2003 11:42:12 +0100 Message-ID: <3E9BE202.D90CB671@eim.surrey.ac.uk> From: Ning Wang Organization: University of Surrey, Guildford, England X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.18-24.7.x i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pim@catarina.usc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-112.4 required=5.5 tests=AWL,BAYES_01,USER_IN_WHITELIST version=2.50 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp) X-Scanner: exiscan *195NtE-0003AL-00*yaHc2m.jpwo* (SECM, UniS) Subject: [pim] One question 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, 15 Apr 2003 11:42:11 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello: I have one basic question on the PIM-SM join procedure. According to the draft, this can be done by either directly using the unicast routing table (which means the join packet is sent on the same path towards RP/source), or an independent MRIB. I wonder how this MRIB is created. Do we need another set of link metrics for multicast join requests (if the unicast and multicast topology are incongruent)? If there is only one set of metrics for both uni and multicast, how MRIB is computed? Does the router need to compute a reversed shortest path tree for RPF checking (assuming that link metrics are asymmetric)? Thanks Ning _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Thu Apr 17 13:31:26 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 NAA29553 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 13:31:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3HHTQu13024; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 10:29:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from dns1.tilab.com (dns1.tilab.com [163.162.42.4]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3HHP0u12942 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 10:25:00 -0700 (PDT) (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 <0HDI0058A0AY5N@dns1.cselt.it> for pim@catarina.usc.edu; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 19:23:22 +0200 (MEST) Received: from iowa.cselt.it ([163.162.4.49]) by iowa.cselt.it with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Thu, 17 Apr 2003 19:24:53 +0200 Received: from EXC2K01A.cselt.it ([163.162.4.34]) by iowa.cselt.it with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Thu, 17 Apr 2003 19:24:53 +0200 From: Lo Galbo Emanuele To: pim@catarina.usc.edu Message-id: <9620749A0C40FB49B72994B11B077C5DD25CF5@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: pim-sm thread-index: AcMFBkFudJltzIF9TIyjN5OxqQgu0g== Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Apr 2003 17:24:53.0161 (UTC) FILETIME=[41FDF190:01C30506] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by catarina.usc.edu id h3HHP0u12942 Subject: [pim] pim-sm 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, 17 Apr 2003 19:24:52 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi all I have 2 questions: 1) Is RFC 2362 about PIm-Sm valid both for IPv6 And IPv4 2)After a RP send a Register-Stop to sender's DR packets are sent natively by the sender.How does PIM-SM build the tree from the sender to the RP? Is it built in the same way as the tree between the RP and the receiver, i.d. using jion mesagges? Thank you and best regards ==================================================================== 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 Apr 17 13:42:38 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 NAA29848 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 13:42:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3HHfau13325; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 10:41:36 -0700 (PDT) (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 h3HHdcu13266 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 10:39:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mjh@aardvark.icir.org) Received: from aardvark.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aardvark.icir.org (8.12.8p1/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h3HHdbY3039992; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 10:39:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mjh@aardvark.icir.org) From: Mark Handley X-Organisation: ICIR To: Lo Galbo Emanuele cc: pim@catarina.usc.edu Subject: Re: [pim] pim-sm In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 17 Apr 2003 19:24:52 +0200." <9620749A0C40FB49B72994B11B077C5DD25CF5@EXC2K01A.cselt.it> Message-ID: <39991.1050601177@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, 17 Apr 2003 10:39:37 -0700 >1) Is RFC 2362 about PIm-Sm valid both for IPv6 And IPv4 RFC 2362 is obsolete. draft-ietf-pim-sm-v2-new-07 is much preferred. - Mark _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Thu Apr 17 14:30:58 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 OAA01290 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 14:30:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3HIThu14289; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 11:29:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from dino-pc.procket.com (zeus-ext.procket.com [65.174.124.29]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3HIRVu14238 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 11:27:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dino@procket.com) Received: (from dino@localhost) by dino-pc.procket.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA29695; Thu, 17 Apr 2003 11:37:04 -0700 Message-Id: <200304171837.LAA29695@dino-pc.procket.com> X-Authentication-Warning: dino-pc.procket.com: dino set sender to dino@dino-pc.procket.com using -f From: Dino Farinacci To: mjh@icir.org CC: Emanuele.Logalbo@tilab.com, pim@catarina.usc.edu In-reply-to: <39991.1050601177@aardvark.icir.org> (message from Mark Handley on Thu, 17 Apr 2003 10:39:37 -0700) Subject: Re: [pim] pim-sm References: <39991.1050601177@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, 17 Apr 2003 11:37:04 -0700 >> RFC 2362 is obsolete. draft-ietf-pim-sm-v2-new-07 is much preferred. Be careful in what you state Mark. The spec may been obsoleted but there are implementationsn that still conform to 2362. And there may be implementations that conform to both. Dino _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Fri Apr 18 05:33:58 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 FAA06910 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 05:33:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3I9RDu30340; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 02:27:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from exil2.ircam.fr (mailhost.ircam.fr [129.102.1.5]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3I9OSu30277 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 02:24:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Francois.Dumont@ircam.fr) Received: from exil.ircam.fr (exil.ircam.fr [129.102.1.2]) by exil2.ircam.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79CC412D8C for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 11:24:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from lionceau.ircam.fr (lionceau.ircam.fr [129.102.7.130]) by exil.ircam.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F91B12F07 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 11:24:27 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: =?iso-8859-15?q?fran=E7ois=20dumont?= Reply-To: Francois.Dumont@ircam.fr Organization: ircam To: pim@catarina.usc.edu User-Agent: KMail/1.4.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <200304181124.20841.francois.dumont@ircam.fr> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by catarina.usc.edu id h3I9OSu30277 Subject: [pim] pim daemons 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, 18 Apr 2003 11:24:20 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I know there is pimd for linux, but is it really updated sometimes? It seems everythings has been given up lately... Am I wrong? _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Fri Apr 18 15:47:10 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 PAA25001 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 15:47:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3IJkTu41733; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 12:46:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from exch-sjc-ims.force10networks.com (corp.force10networks.com [206.54.51.125]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3IJgDu41648 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 12:42:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from svallepa@force10networks.com) Received: from EXCH-CLUSTER-01.force10networks.com ([10.11.0.32]) by exch-sjc-ims.force10networks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Fri, 18 Apr 2003 12:41:50 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C305E2.8E123C13" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: CouldRegister(S,G) Thread-Index: AcMF4o3Tywtz65OJQ6eWf+vGrNm9nQ== From: "Sridhar Vallepalli" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Apr 2003 19:41:50.0841 (UTC) FILETIME=[8E862690:01C305E2] Subject: [pim] CouldRegister(S,G) 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, 18 Apr 2003 12:41:50 -0700 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C305E2.8E123C13 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi,=20 If first hop router doesn't have unicast reachability to RP should the = router take the hit of encapsulation, finally to be dropped at the = unicast forwarding. Can CouldRegister(S,G) check if RP(G) is reachable = before returning TRUE or FALSE. This way appropriate state events in per-(S,G) register state-machine = will happen. Please comment. Thanks Sridhar ------_=_NextPart_001_01C305E2.8E123C13 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable CouldRegister(S,G)

Hi,
        If first hop router doesn't have unicast reachability to = RP should the router take the hit of encapsulation, finally to be = dropped at the unicast forwarding. Can CouldRegister(S,G) check if RP(G) = is reachable before returning TRUE or FALSE.

This way appropriate state events in = per-(S,G) register state-machine will happen.

Please comment.

Thanks
Sridhar

------_=_NextPart_001_01C305E2.8E123C13-- _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Fri Apr 18 17:20:20 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 RAA27197 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 17:20:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3ILJuu43426; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 14:19:56 -0700 (PDT) (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 h3ILHJu43376 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 14:17:19 -0700 (PDT) (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 8E5B023C53; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 14:06:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exchangefe2.na.procket.com (email.na.procket.com [10.1.7.252]) by miata.procket.com (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h3ILH0YB025327; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 14:17:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from procket.com ([10.1.1.1]) by exchangefe2.na.procket.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Fri, 18 Apr 2003 14:16:59 -0700 Subject: Re: [pim] CouldRegister(S,G) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-2--621025510 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Cc: John Zwiebel , To: "Sridhar Vallepalli" From: John Zwiebel In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <16CE7B96-71E3-11D7-B75B-00039307689E@procket.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Apr 2003 21:16:59.0900 (UTC) FILETIME=[D9636BC0:01C305EF] 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, 18 Apr 2003 14:16:58 -0700 --Apple-Mail-2--621025510 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable IMHO, this is an implementation specific question. NOTE: one problem with PIM is that often mpackets are sent with TTL that isn't large enough to get to the RP, but that doesn't prevent the PIM register from getting to the RP to create state. An implementation might choose to set the encapsulation TTL to the same as the mpacket to prevent stqate from being created and disappearing over and over again. On Friday, April 18, 2003, at 12:41 PM, Sridhar Vallepalli wrote: > Hi, > =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 If first hop router doesn't have unicast = reachability to RP=20 > should the router take the hit of encapsulation, finally to be dropped=20= > at the unicast forwarding. Can CouldRegister(S,G) check if RP(G) is=20 > reachable before returning TRUE or FALSE. > > This way appropriate state events in per-(S,G) register state-machine=20= > will happen. > > Please comment. > > Thanks > Sridhar > --Apple-Mail-2--621025510 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable IMHO, this is an implementation specific question. NOTE: one problem with PIM is that often mpackets are sent with TTL that isn't large enough to get to the RP, but that doesn't prevent the PIM register from getting to the RP to create state. An implementation might choose to set the encapsulation TTL to the same as the mpacket to prevent stqate from being created and disappearing over and over again. On Friday, April 18, 2003, at 12:41 PM, Sridhar Vallepalli wrote: ArialHi, =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 ArialIf first hop router doesn't have unicast reachability to RP should the router take the hit of encapsulation, finally to be dropped at the unicast forwarding. Can CouldRegister(S,G) check if RP(G) is reachable before returning TRUE or FALSE. ArialThis way appropriate state events in per-(S,G) register state-machine will = happen. ArialPlease = comment. ArialThanks Sridhar = --Apple-Mail-2--621025510-- _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Sat Apr 19 05:03:51 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 FAA21660 for ; Sat, 19 Apr 2003 05:03:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3J8wtu56748; Sat, 19 Apr 2003 01:58:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from fsnt.future.futsoft.com ([203.197.140.35]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3J8s8u56657 for ; Sat, 19 Apr 2003 01:54:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from srimg@future.futsoft.com) Received: from kailash.future.futsoft.com (unverified) by fsnt.future.futsoft.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id for ; Sat, 19 Apr 2003 14:32:38 +0530 Received: from srimg (srimg.future.futsoft.com [10.4.5.24]) by kailash.future.futsoft.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with SMTP id h3J8p5jr005536 for ; Sat, 19 Apr 2003 14:21:06 +0530 Reply-To: From: "Sri Manikandan" To: Message-Id: <001201c30650$caaa13c0$1805040a@future.futsoft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 00000000AE7B336A225CD511BC200050DAED41BC846D3F01 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0013_01C3067E.E469F0E0" Subject: [pim] unsubscribe 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: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 14:20:56 +0530 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C3067E.E469F0E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit unsubscribe *************************************************************************** This message is proprietary to Future Software Limited (FSL) and is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged or confidential information and should not be circulated or used for any purpose other than for what it is intended. If you have received this message in error, please notify the originator immediately. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that you are strictly prohibited from using, copying, altering, or disclosing the contents of this message. FSL accepts no responsibility for loss or damage arising from the use of the information transmitted by this email including damage from virus. *************************************************************************** ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C3067E.E469F0E0 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef; name="winmail.dat" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="winmail.dat" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IjgIAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEGgAMADgAAANMHBAATAA4AFAAAAAYAGQEB A5AGAHQGAAAnAAAACwACAAEAAAALACMAAAAAAAMAJgAAAAAACwApAAAAAAADAC4AAAAAAAMANgAA AAAAHgBwAAEAAAAMAAAAdW5zdWJzY3JpYmUAAgFxAAEAAAAWAAAAAcMGUMpuUfcSjXJsEde8QwBQ 2u1BvAAAAgEdDAEAAAAeAAAAU01UUDpTUklNR0BGVVRVUkUuRlVUU09GVC5DT00AAAALAAEOAAAA AEAABg4ALA+pUAbDAQIBCg4BAAAAGAAAAAAAAACuezNqIlzVEbwgAFDa7UG8woAAAAMAFA4BAAAA CwAfDgEAAAACAQkQAQAAAKQCAACgAgAAxQUAAExaRnV0QOoqAwAKAHJjcGcxMjWCMgNDaHRtbDED MD8BAwH3CoACpAPjAgBjaMEKwHNldDAgBxMCgP8QAwBQBFYIVQeyEdUOUQMB3RDXMgYABsMR1TME RhDZ+RLvZjQDxhGFEeMI7wn39jsaHw4wNRs/HEMR4QxgzmMAUAsJAWQzNhFgC6VkNCAQAipcDrIB kGcBIBAzIDwhRE9DAFRZUEUgSFRNAEwgUFVCTElDACAiLS8vVzNDkSLQRFREIeQ0LhFg5FRyAHJ0 aQIgB0Ai0PBFTiI+EeMghyEwCqP5JTwxOSFAIfIlLiAgJ5CIRUFEJS0xNzchQOBUSVRMRSUtIBAO 8EEIUWxkUmVnBAB0QQSQKFMsRykmjTj6NSFALyqfJzImLy+PJvYCNg7wPE1FVEEgxwWgAjAJ8HQ9 IgXgIfNiNSPgMC4yMmAj0DMyNTQQIiAkoAeAPUeBJPBFUkFUT1IlLf8r4S5QKR8g8TEfIOE0oCFA cEJPRFklLR+ROH9nxDk2IUBESVYlICCTPQAhIAAAPPURYCBpNjQnPN894iacNDghQEZPzE5UMuEZ sT0jNBA0ELkBICBmANA1IAcTIACQ6no1IDI8y2MT8AMxICCXC9MDMD2XdQCAdWIE8tRiZSacNTxh L0FiPMn/Pvc+CwHAPvcKokjICoAmnP4wKOEjMDyrSMk6PztPPFKDImAhgEtRVU9UIdAZLKB5bDUg M3BBUkdASU4tUklHIfA68CAwcHglET8HCqIQAv9OD08fIIkRYFdAJTw+0CFAxlA8zz3TXGxpH3Ig S9I4ICAmbkYwcAKAU1j8J2EBQFl4Sm9LdFNdVF//ScYuQViRS98uUFD4TT9gH/85gEExYtA57yEA KmE3ACe/BSYHfWlAHgBCEAEAAABNAAAAPEEwQkMwN0M2QUVCQjg1NEZBNjZBOUMzODgyMDY3MTI4 MTQ0RTE1QEVYQ0gtQ0xVU1RFUi0wMS5mb3JjZTEwbmV0d29ya3MuY29tPgAAAAADAAJZAAAWAAMA CVkCAAAACwAAgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAA4UAAAAAAAADAAKACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAA RgAAAAAQhQAAAAAAAAMAB4AIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAFKFAAA/cQEAHgAJgAggBgAAAAAA wAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAVIUAAAEAAAAEAAAAOS4wAB4ADoAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAIOFAAAB AAAAEwAAADk5MDQxNTAwOC0xOTA0MjAwMwAACwAzgAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAABoUAAAAA AAADADSACCAGAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAABhQAAAAAAAAsAPYAIIAYAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAA AA6FAAAAAAAAAwA+gAggBgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYAAAAAEYUAAAAAAAADAECACCAGAAAAAADAAAAA AAAARgAAAAAYhQAAAAAAAAIB+A8BAAAAEAAAAK57M2oiXNURvCAAUNrtQbwCAfoPAQAAABAAAACu ezNqIlzVEbwgAFDa7UG8AgH7DwEAAABGAAAAAAAAADihuxAF5RAaobsIACsqVsIAAG1zcHN0LmRs bAAAAAAATklUQfm/uAEAqgA32W4AAABEOlxtYWlsXG1haWwucHN0AAAAAwD+DwUAAAADAA00/TcA AAIBfwABAAAAMQAAADAwMDAwMDAwQUU3QjMzNkEyMjVDRDUxMUJDMjAwMDUwREFFRDQxQkM4NDZE M0YwMQAAAAADAAYQChPoQwMABxALAAAAAwAQEAAAAAADABEQAAAAAB4ACBABAAAADAAAAFVOU1VC U0NSSUJFAK5o ------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C3067E.E469F0E0-- _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Tue Apr 22 10:10:53 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 KAA10624 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:10:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3ME8tu41560; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 07:08:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from rediffmail.com (webmail18.rediffmail.com [203.199.83.28] (may be forged)) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id h3ME3wu41473 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 07:03:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from learning_pim@rediffmail.com) Received: (qmail 23470 invoked by uid 510); 22 Apr 2003 14:09:14 -0000 Message-ID: <20030422140914.23469.qmail@webmail18.rediffmail.com> Received: from unknown (203.197.138.199) by rediffmail.com via HTTP; 22 apr 2003 14:09:13 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "Prashant Jhingran" Reply-To: "Prashant Jhingran" To: idmr@cs.ucl.ac.uk Cc: pim@catarina.usc.edu Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Subject: [pim] Interop with old IGMP version routers 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: 22 Apr 2003 14:09:14 -0000 Hi, Section 4 of RFC 2236 is as follows: An IGMPv2 router may be placed on a subnet where at least one router on the subnet has not yet been upgraded to IGMPv2. The following requirements apply: If any IGMPv1 routers are present, the querier MUST use IGMPv1. The use of IGMPv1 must be administratively configured, as there is no reliable way of dynamically determining whether IGMPv1 routers are present on a network. Implementations MAY provide a way for system administrators to enable the use of IGMPv1 on their routers; in the absence of explicit configuration, the configuration MUST default to IGMPv2. Section 7.3.1 of RFC 3376: If a router is not explicitly configured to use IGMPv1 or IGMPv2 and hears an IGMPv1 Query or IGMPv2 General Query, it SHOULD log a warning. These warnings MUST be rate-limited. The question is RFC 2236 clearly specifies that Router MUST use the default version. Whereas RFC 3376 does not explicitly specifies about the version to be used when it hears a IGMP Query from a lower version router. Can we follow the guidelines of the RFC 2236 and extend it further for IGMPv3 (i.e. the configuration MUST default to IGMPv3), or shall we downgrade the version automatically to interop with lower version routers ?? Kind Regards, -Prashant _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Fri Apr 25 02:43:43 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 CAA28915 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2003 02:43:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3P6flu17563; Thu, 24 Apr 2003 23:41:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from bosvwl01.infosys.com (bosvwl01.infosys.com [216.52.49.35]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id h3P6bqu17464 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2003 23:37:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from avinash_aithal@infosys.com) Received: from 192.168.200.82 by bosvwl01.infosys.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Fri, 25 Apr 2003 02:39:09 -0400 Received: from BLRKECIMR01.ad.infosys.com ([192.168.200.58]) by INDHUBBHS02.ad.infosys.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:08:57 +0530 Received: from kecmsg06.ad.infosys.com ([192.168.200.75]) by BLRKECIMR01.ad.infosys.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:08:57 +0530 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Message-ID: <56E2573C375A414191118970BDE06A150A44B31B@kecmsg06.ad.infosys.com> Thread-Topic: need info about test tools Thread-Index: AcMK9VkH0/AeDhFnRaay5IBeSR/zzw== From: "Avinash Parampalli Vasudev Aithal" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Apr 2003 06:38:57.0727 (UTC) FILETIME=[594204F0:01C30AF5] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by catarina.usc.edu id h3P6bqu17464 Subject: [pim] need info about test tools 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, 25 Apr 2003 12:08:57 +0530 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, I'm into testing of PIM-routers. I would like to know if there is a freely available tool on the web, to test the IGMP-Vx/PIM-xM functionality. Thanks in advance, Avinash. _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim