From 558-mailing-list-admin@catarina.usc.edu Sun Jun 1 08:11:14 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 IAA05582 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 08:11:14 -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 h51CAkX20831 for ; Sun, 1 Jun 2003 05:10:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from 558-mailing-list-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 05:10:46 -0700 Message-ID: <20030601121046.16703.62495.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 Wed Jun 4 14:27:00 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 OAA04932 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:26:59 -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 h54IKdX97872; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 11:20:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from usc.edu (root@usc.edu [128.125.253.136]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h54IGCX97781 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 11:16:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ardas@laurelnetworks.com) Received: from staple.laurelnetworks.com (nobody@staple.laurelnetworks.com [63.94.127.68]) by usc.edu (8.9.3.1/8.9.3/usc) with ESMTP id JAA19748 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 09:19:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from notepad.laurelnetworks.com (notepad.laurelnetworks.com [63.94.127.20]) by staple.laurelnetworks.com (Laurel/Laurel) with ESMTP id h54GGHDj004304 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:16:17 -0400 Received: from laurelnetworks.com (ardas-pc-linux.dhcp.pit.laurelnetworks.com [10.0.17.190]) by notepad.laurelnetworks.com (Laurel/Laurel) with ESMTP id h54GGHM3030387 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:16:17 -0400 Message-ID: <3EDE1B51.8080202@laurelnetworks.com> From: Ardas Cilingiroglu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pim@catarina.usc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [pim] RP priority and holdtime in BSMs 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, 04 Jun 2003 12:16:17 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, When routers do group-to-RP mapping, they consider only the RPs with the highest priority for a given group-range. So then, for a given group-range, it should be sufficient for the BSR to send only the RPs with the highest priority among the C-RPs. And if BSR is sending all of them, the receivers need to store only the highest priority ones for a given group- range ignoring the lower priority ones. Is this true? Also, what is the use of RP holdtime for the receivers? Timing out C-RPs are done by the BSR only. And if the receivers also need to do it, they need the remaining lifetime not the holdtime. Thanks, Ardas _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Thu Jun 5 15:41:49 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 PAA13775 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 15:41:48 -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 h55JdHX22655; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 12:39:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h55JZkX22590 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 12:35:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nbhaskar@cisco.com) Received: from cypher.cisco.com (cypher.cisco.com [171.69.11.143]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h55JZcwd026341; Thu, 5 Jun 2003 12:35:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Nidhi Bhaskar To: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= cc: Mark Handley , Tom Pusateri , pim@catarina.usc.edu Subject: Re: [pim] null register dummy ip header In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <200305192123.h4JLNXu61384@merlot.juniper.net> <64726.1053381331@aardvark.icir.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 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: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 12:35:38 -0700 (PDT) > > And something similar with IPv6. > > Hmm, but IPv6 does not have a checksum field in its base header: > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |Version| Traffic Class | Flow Label | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Payload Length | Next Header | Hop Limit | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | | > + + > | | > + Source Address + > | | > + + > | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | | > + + > | | > + Destination Address + > | | > + + > | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > (from Section 3 of RFC 2460) > > So, if we really need to care about this for IPv6, we may have to > either: > > - add a (dummy) PIM header after the inner IPv6 header, and put the > checksum for the inner headers there. Or specify that for IPv6 NULL registers the checksum calculation for the outer PIM header SHOULD include the dummy IP header. Implementations MUST accept NULL registers whose checksum does not include the inner header. However, this will mean adding configuration knobs when DRs are updated before the domain's RP. Thanks, Nidhi. > > 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 > _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Tue Jun 10 17:04:26 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 RAA17988 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 17:04:24 -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 h5AKx5X41925; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 13:59:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from web80105.mail.yahoo.com (web80105.mail.yahoo.com [66.163.169.78]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id h5AKs6X41837 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 13:54:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mreddy@pacbell.net) Message-ID: <20030610205406.75772.qmail@web80105.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [64.47.48.10] by web80105.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 13:54:06 PDT From: Madhu Reddy To: pim@catarina.usc.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: [pim] Multicast Border Router behavior 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, 10 Jun 2003 13:54:06 -0700 (PDT) Hi, I would like to understand the behavior of a multicast border router. I have gone through RFC2715 and could not get answers to these questions. It's probably a little bit of architectural/design question as well. I would appreciate if someone can shed light on this. Consider the following setup: PIM DVMRP A ------ B ------ C if1 if2 B is the border router in question. The PIM component owns interface if1 and DVMRP owns the interface if2. B also has interfaces if3 running PIM and if4 running DVMRP. PIM uses the unicast routing table and DVMRP uses its own table for RPF checks. Q) If A and C want traffic for (S,G), but PIM and DVMRP both disagree on where the RPF interface is (say PIM thinks it is if3 and DVMRP thinks it is if4), whose RPF should be picked? In other words, should the TIB entry be (S,G) iif3 {if1, if2} OR (S,G) iif4 {if1, if2} Does it matter? It's probably a misconfiguration anyway if the same route is pointing in two different directions in the two tables, but how should it be handled? Is this something that can be resolved through a preference like in unicast routing protocols? If it is, aren't there issues with it? (PIM picks if3 as RPF, but DVMRP has a higher preference, so if4 is picked. Should PIM send a Prune on if3 then?)Do any vendors support this? Thanks. Madhu _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Wed Jun 11 02:37:54 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 CAA27136 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 02:37:54 -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 h5B6XIX51418; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 23:33:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from web8202.mail.in.yahoo.com (web8202.mail.in.yahoo.com [203.199.70.115]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id h5B6UaX51363 for ; Tue, 10 Jun 2003 23:30:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jaganbabu_pim@yahoo.co.in) Message-ID: <20030611063028.91546.qmail@web8202.mail.in.yahoo.com> Received: from [136.182.2.221] by web8202.mail.in.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 07:30:28 BST From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Rajamanickam=20jaganbabu?= Subject: Re: [pim] Multicast Border Router behavior To: Madhu Reddy , pim@catarina.usc.edu In-Reply-To: <20030610205406.75772.qmail@web80105.mail.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-938025001-1055313028=:89147" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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, 11 Jun 2003 07:30:28 +0100 (BST) --0-938025001-1055313028=:89147 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, According to the RPF 2715 session 2 (Rule1, 2 and 3), i think we can have only one (S,G) route on the Forwarding table, If the data starts flowing on the incoming inferface (PIM interface), then that particular (S,G) route will be installed in the forwarder. If iam receiving the data packet on the other interface (DVMRP interface), as you said it should trigger a prune on PIM interface. But what i feel good thing to do is, have both the (S,G) routes in the forwarding table (CAM), the key for the CAM lookup should be atleast , which will fetch us the exact (S,G) route depending on the incoming interface. This will accutally prevent joining and pruning the interface in the case of under lying unicast route flapping. Note: The above suggesion is valid only when your forwarding CAM is flexible enough to do a lookup on the key . Regards, Jags Madhu Reddy wrote: Hi, I would like to understand the behavior of a multicast border router. I have gone through RFC2715 and could not get answers to these questions. It's probably a little bit of architectural/design question as well. I would appreciate if someone can shed light on this. Consider the following setup: PIM DVMRP A ------ B ------ C if1 if2 B is the border router in question. The PIM component owns interface if1 and DVMRP owns the interface if2. B also has interfaces if3 running PIM and if4 running DVMRP. PIM uses the unicast routing table and DVMRP uses its own table for RPF checks. Q) If A and C want traffic for (S,G), but PIM and DVMRP both disagree on where the RPF interface is (say PIM thinks it is if3 and DVMRP thinks it is if4), whose RPF should be picked? In other words, should the TIB entry be (S,G) iif3 {if1, if2} OR (S,G) iif4 {if1, if2} Does it matter? It's probably a misconfiguration anyway if the same route is pointing in two different directions in the two tables, but how should it be handled? Is this something that can be resolved through a preference like in unicast routing protocols? If it is, aren't there issues with it? (PIM picks if3 as RPF, but DVMRP has a higher preference, so if4 is picked. Should PIM send a Prune on if3 then?)Do any vendors support this? Thanks. Madhu _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim Catch all the cricket action. Download Yahoo! Score tracker --0-938025001-1055313028=:89147 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hi,
   According to the RPF 2715 session 2 (Rule1, 2 and 3), i think we can have only one (S,G) route on the Forwarding table, If the data starts flowing on the incoming inferface (PIM interface), then that particular (S,G) route will be installed in the forwarder. If iam receiving the data packet on the other interface (DVMRP interface), as you said it should trigger a prune on PIM interface.

   But what i feel good thing to do is, have both the (S,G) routes in the forwarding table (CAM), the key for the CAM lookup should be atleast <group_addr, src_addr, incoming_interface>, which will fetch us the exact (S,G) route depending on the incoming interface. This will accutally prevent joining and pruning the interface in the case of under lying unicast route flapping.
  Note: The above suggesion is valid only when your forwarding CAM is flexible enough to do a lookup on the key <group_addr, src_addr, incoming_interface>.
 
Regards,
Jags


Madhu Reddy <mreddy@pacbell.net> wrote:
Hi,
I would like to understand the behavior of a multicast
border router. I have gone through RFC2715 and could
not get answers to these questions. It's probably a
little bit of architectural/design question as well.
I would appreciate if someone can shed light on this.

Consider the following setup:

PIM DVMRP
A ------ B ------ C
if1 if2

B is the border router in question.
The PIM component owns interface if1 and DVMRP owns
the interface if2. B also has interfaces if3 running
PIM and if4 running DVMRP.

PIM uses the unicast routing table and DVMRP uses its
own table for RPF checks.

Q) If A and C want traffic for (S,G), but PIM and
DVMRP both disagree on where the RPF interface is (say
PIM thinks it is if3 and DVMRP thinks it is if4),
whose RPF should be picked? In other words, should the
TIB entry be

! (S,G) iif3 {if1, if2} OR
(S,G) iif4 {if1, if2}

Does it matter? It's probably a misconfiguration
anyway if the same route is pointing in two different
directions in the two tables, but how should it be
handled? Is this something that can be resolved
through a preference like in unicast routing
protocols? If it is, aren't there issues with it? (PIM
picks if3 as RPF, but DVMRP has a higher preference,
so if4 is picked. Should PIM send a Prune on if3
then?)Do any vendors support this? Thanks.

Madhu
_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
pim@catarina.usc.edu
http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim

Catch all the cricket action. Download Yahoo! Score tracker --0-938025001-1055313028=:89147-- _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Wed Jun 11 12:52:12 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 MAA16965 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 12:52:10 -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 h5BGmsX64120; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:48:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from staple.laurelnetworks.com (nobody@staple.laurelnetworks.com [63.94.127.68]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5BGkdX64063 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:46:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ardas@laurelnetworks.com) Received: from postit.laurelnetworks.com (postit.laurelnetworks.com [63.94.127.21]) by staple.laurelnetworks.com (Laurel/Laurel) with ESMTP id h5BGkcX1026931 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 12:46:38 -0400 Received: from laurelnetworks.com (ardas-pc-linux.dhcp.pit.laurelnetworks.com [10.0.17.190]) by postit.laurelnetworks.com (Laurel/Laurel) with ESMTP id h5BGkclU030354 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 12:46:38 -0400 Message-ID: <3EE75CEE.6090404@laurelnetworks.com> From: Ardas Cilingiroglu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pim@catarina.usc.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [pim] ambiguity in sending C-RP-Adv? 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, 11 Jun 2003 12:46:38 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, In section 3.1 of the draft-ietf-pim-sm-bsr-03.txt, it states that "If the router is the BSR for more than one scope zone, the C-RP-Adv for these scope zones MAY be combined into a single message". I believe this is ambiguous. When a BSR (that serves multiple scope zones) receives consecutive C-RP-Adv from the same RP, how should it be interpreted? (1) Does the second one overrides the first (because the group- ranges this RP serves has changed), or (2) The second one complements the first (because they are for different scope zones). One easy solution to this could be to change the word MAY into MUST in the draft, which would mean always (1). Another one is to change MAY into SHOULD NOT, which would mean (2) if the scope zones are different and (1) if they are the same. Any comments? Thanks, Ardas _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Thu Jun 12 10:56:11 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 KAA14426 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:56:09 -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 h5CEqUX88956; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 07:52:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from bosvwl02.infosys.com (bosvwl02.inf.com [216.52.49.36]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id h5CEllX88801 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 07:47:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bharat_joshi@infosys.com) Received: from 192.168.200.83 by bosvwl02.infosys.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:49:34 -0400 Received: from BLRKECIMR01.ad.infosys.com ([192.168.200.58]) by INDHUBBHS03.ad.infosys.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Thu, 12 Jun 2003 20:16:39 +0530 Received: from kecmsg06.ad.infosys.com ([192.168.200.75]) by BLRKECIMR01.ad.infosys.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Thu, 12 Jun 2003 20:16:38 +0530 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6375.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Message-ID: <56E2573C375A414191118970BDE06A150ABE5F62@kecmsg06.ad.infosys.com> Thread-Topic: PIM-SM Fragment BSM implementation Thread-Index: AcMw8W3lXAPV0Bu4SjmnfOBe926UKA== From: "bharat_joshi" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Jun 2003 14:46:39.0208 (UTC) FILETIME=[6E49AE80:01C330F1] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by catarina.usc.edu id h5CEllX88801 Subject: [pim] PIM-SM Fragment BSM implementation 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, 12 Jun 2003 20:16:38 +0530 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, I was doing some PIM-SM testing with Cisco router and pimd (linux m/c). pimd (Linux m/c) doesn't support fragment of BSMs. I saw this in source code. Cisco does support fragmentation of BSMs but it sets the fragTag value to zero in all the cases. Cisco doesn't change the fragTag value in its periodic BSMs also. Its always set to zero. I am using the following release: Cisco Internetwork Operating System Software IOS (tm) 2500 Software (C2500-IS-L), Version 12.2(1), RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc2) has anybody seen this? or am I missing something?? and can anybody tell me if any free utility available which support fragment BSMs? Thanks & Regards, Bharat Joshi ------------------------ Infosys Technologies Ltd., Bangalore, India Tel 91 80 5116 6526 _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Thu Jun 12 13:02:28 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 NAA18735 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:02:27 -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 h5CGwlX91398; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:58:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5CGu6X91348 for ; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:56:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ddhami@cisco.com) Received: from mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com [171.71.163.14]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h5CGu0ms007170; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:56:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ddhami-u10.cisco.com (ddhami-u10.cisco.com [128.107.162.165]) by mira-sjc5-b.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.3-GR) with ESMTP id AIB29599; Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:50:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Dharti Dhami To: bharat_joshi cc: pim@catarina.usc.edu Subject: Re: [pim] PIM-SM Fragment BSM implementation In-Reply-To: <56E2573C375A414191118970BDE06A150ABE5F62@kecmsg06.ad.infosys.com> Message-ID: References: <56E2573C375A414191118970BDE06A150ABE5F62@kecmsg06.ad.infosys.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 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: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 09:55:59 -0700 (PDT) Hi Bharat, > Cisco does support fragmentation of BSMs but it sets the fragTag value >to zero in all the cases. > Cisco doesn't change the fragTag value in its periodic BSMs also. Its >always set to zero. > I am using the following release: > > Cisco Internetwork Operating System Software > IOS (tm) 2500 Software (C2500-IS-L), Version 12.2(1), RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc2) It is fixed in 12.2(12.13) Thanks, Dharti > > has anybody seen this? or am I missing something?? > > and can anybody tell me if any free utility available which support fragment BSMs? > > Thanks & Regards, > Bharat Joshi > > ------------------------ > Infosys Technologies Ltd., > Bangalore, India > Tel 91 80 5116 6526 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jun 20 14:39:57 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 OAA25811 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:39:57 -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 h5KIXZX93897; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:33:35 -0700 (PDT) (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 h5KIU7X93836 for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:30:08 -0700 (PDT) (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 OAA23959; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:30:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200306201830.OAA23959@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-bidir-05.txt,.ps 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, 20 Jun 2003 14:30:03 -0400 --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 : Bi-directional Protocol Independent Multicast (BIDIR-PIM) Author(s) : M. Handley, I. Kouvelas, T. Speakman, L. Vicisano Filename : draft-ietf-pim-bidir-05.txt,.ps Pages : 44 Date : 2003-6-20 This document discusses Bi-directional PIM, a variant of PIM Sparse-Mode [9] that builds bi-directional shared trees connecting multicast sources and receivers. Bi-directional trees are built using a fail-safe Designated Forwarder (DF) election mechanism operating on each link of a multicast topology. With the assistance of the DF, multicast data is natively forwarded from sources to the Rendezvous-Point and hence along the shared tree to receivers without requiring source-specific state. The DF election takes place at RP discovery time and provides a default route to the RP thus eliminating the requirement for data-driven protocol events. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pim-bidir-05.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-bidir-05.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-bidir-05.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: <2003-6-20140831.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pim-bidir-05.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-pim-bidir-05.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-6-20140831.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 Tue Jun 24 08:57:59 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 IAA14275 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 08:57:59 -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 h5OCodX04094; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 05:50:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from chimay.fw.belnet.be (argos.belnet.be [193.190.198.37]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5OClfX04006 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 05:47:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from philippe.vanhecke@belnet.be) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by chimay.fw.belnet.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id B81DB81F42 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:47:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from philippe-2.fw.belnet.be (philippe-2.fw.belnet.be [172.24.198.71]) by chimay.fw.belnet.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id F061281F11 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:47:34 +0200 (CEST) From: Philippe Van Hecke Reply-To: philippe.vanhecke@belnet.be Organization: BELNET To: pim@catarina.usc.edu User-Agent: KMail/1.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Description: clearsigned data Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Message-Id: <200306241451.53599.philippe.vanhecke@belnet.be> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS snapshot-20020222 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by catarina.usc.edu id h5OClfX04006 Subject: [pim] Configure satic RP with pimd-2.1.0-lapha29.18 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, 24 Jun 2003 14:51:51 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I have dowloaded and compiled pimd-2.1.0-lapha29.18 on linux. And i would like to know if there is way to use it with a non auto-rp environement. If yes where i can give the adresse of the RP ? Thanks Philippe. -- _____________________ Philippe Van Hecke NETWORK ENGINEER BELNET Rue de la Science, 4 B-1000 Brussels Belgium Tel: +32 (0) 27903333 Fax: +32 (0) 27903335 ______________________ _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Tue Jun 24 12:19:06 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 MAA22379 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:19:06 -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 h5OFrlX08066; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 08:53:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from micro.ee.nthu.edu.tw (micro.ee.nthu.edu.tw [140.114.29.38]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5OFqiX08014 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 08:52:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from biker@micro.ee.nthu.edu.tw) Received: from acctone087xzqz (61-218-220-18.HINET-IP.hinet.net [61.218.220.18]) by micro.ee.nthu.edu.tw (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CE264F05; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 23:52:33 +0800 (CST) Message-ID: <002d01c33a68$a51f7d60$6503a8c0@accton.com.tw> From: "biker" To: Cc: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002A_01C33AAB.B2609AC0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Subject: [pim] Ask a question about behavior of PIM and IGMP 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, 24 Jun 2003 23:52:40 +0800 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C33AAB.B2609AC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="big5" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, We are developing a layer3 switch product. We encounter a problem. = Is behavior and configuration of PIM and IGMP based on "Interface"(vlan, = port, etc)? or based on subnet? or others? I had studied a lot of documents. I find many company use = "Interface-based". But I can't find any idea from formal = documents(RFC,...). May you give some advice or tell me which document have mentioned = this. =20 Following is example for this question. For example: switch configuration: Two vlan: Vlan 1, Vlan 2 Four subnet: (10.1.1.254, 255.255.255.0) associated to vlan1 (10.1.2.254, 255.255.255.0) associated to vlan1 (10.1.3.254, 255.255.255.0) associated to vlan2 (10.1.4.254, 255.255.255.0) associated to vlan2 Base on "Interface": Our configuration must based vlan. for example: User can configure by subnet. It mean user can configure vlan 1's PIM = and IGMP configuration. And behavior is based on subnet. It mean switch = must choose one subnet to send PIM and IGMP packets. This subnet will be = spokesman of vlan1. Switch will treat (10.1.1.254, 255.255.255.0) and (10.1.2.254, = 255.255.255.0) as same multicast domain. Based on "subnet": User can configure by subnet. It mean user can configure (10.1.1.254, = 255.255.255.0)'s PIM and IGMP configuration. And behavior is based on = subnet. It mean (10.1.1.254, 255.255.255.0) may send out all PIM and = IGMP packets. And (10.1.2.254, 255.255.255.0) can do same thing.=20 Switch will treat (10.1.1.254, 255.255.255.0) and (10.1.2.254, = 255.255.255.0) as different domain. Thanks, /Biker ------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C33AAB.B2609AC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="big5" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi all,
    We are developing a layer3 switch = product.=20 We encounter a problem. Is behavior and configuration of PIM and = IGMP based=20 on "Interface"(vlan, port, etc)? or based on=20 subnet? or others?
    I had studied a lot of documents. = I find=20 many company use "Interface-based". But I can't find any idea=20 from formal documents(RFC,...).
    May you give some advice or tell = me which=20 document have mentioned this.
   
    Following is example for this=20 question.
 
For example:
switch configuration:
Two vlan:
    Vlan 1, Vlan 2
 
Four subnet:
(10.1.1.254, 255.255.255.0) associated to = vlan1
(10.1.2.254, 255.255.255.0) associated to = vlan1
(10.1.3.254, 255.255.255.0) associated to vlan2
(10.1.4.254, 255.255.255.0) associated to = vlan2
 
Base on "Interface":
Our configuration must based vlan.
for example:
User can configure by subnet. It mean user can configure vlan 1's = PIM and=20 IGMP configuration. And behavior is based on subnet. It mean switch must = choose=20 one subnet to send PIM and IGMP packets. This subnet will be spokesman = of=20 vlan1.
Switch will treat (10.1.1.254, 255.255.255.0) and (10.1.2.254, = 255.255.255.0) as same multicast domain.
 
Based on "subnet":
User can configure by subnet. It mean user can configure = (10.1.1.254,=20 255.255.255.0)'s PIM and IGMP configuration. And behavior is based on = subnet. It=20 mean (10.1.1.254, 255.255.255.0) may send out all PIM and IGMP packets. = And=20 (10.1.2.254, 255.255.255.0) can do same thing.
Switch will treat (10.1.1.254, 255.255.255.0) and (10.1.2.254,=20 255.255.255.0) as different domain.
 
 
 
Thanks,
 
/Biker
------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C33AAB.B2609AC0-- _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Tue Jun 24 12:28:24 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 MAA22725 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:28:23 -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 h5OGPCX08815; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:25:12 -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 h5OGO7X08782 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:24:07 -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 A6B4523C53; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 08:39:19 -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 h5OGO1YB005608; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:24:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from procket.com ([10.1.1.1]) by exchangefe2.na.procket.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:24:01 -0700 Subject: Re: [pim] Ask a question about behavior of PIM and IGMP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Cc: , To: "biker" From: John Zwiebel In-Reply-To: <002d01c33a68$a51f7d60$6503a8c0@accton.com.tw> Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jun 2003 16:24:01.0447 (UTC) FILETIME=[057D9B70:01C33A6D] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by catarina.usc.edu id h5OGO7X08782 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, 24 Jun 2003 09:22:00 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit FWIW: Think about who the PIM hellos will be received by in both examples. You only want one DR elected on a "physical subnet" I interpret your "interface-based" example to mean a single VLAN. A single VLAN would be equivalent to a "physical subnet". If you were to configure two /24 addresses on a router interface, only the highest IP address would be elected the DR. (But you will be asking for trouble because unicast routing is going to be a problem. It has been recommended that you "don't do this".) On Tuesday, June 24, 2003, at 08:52 AM, biker wrote: > Hi all, >     We are developing a layer3 switch product. We encounter a problem. > Is behavior and configuration of PIM and IGMP based on > "Interface"(vlan, port, etc)? or based on subnet? or others? >     I had studied a lot of documents. I find many company use > "Interface-based". But I can't find any idea from formal > documents(RFC,...). >     May you give some advice or tell me which document have mentioned > this. >     >     Following is example for this question. >   > For example: > switch configuration: > Two vlan: >     Vlan 1, Vlan 2 >   > Four subnet: > (10.1.1.254, 255.255.255.0) associated to vlan1 > (10.1.2.254, 255.255.255.0) associated to vlan1 > (10.1.3.254, 255.255.255.0) associated to vlan2 > (10.1.4.254, 255.255.255.0) associated to vlan2 >   > Base on "Interface": > Our configuration must based vlan. > for example: > User can configure by subnet. It mean user can configure vlan 1's PIM > and IGMP configuration. And behavior is based on subnet. It mean > switch must choose one subnet to send PIM and IGMP packets. This > subnet will be spokesman of vlan1. > Switch will treat (10.1.1.254, 255.255.255.0) and (10.1.2.254, > 255.255.255.0) as same multicast domain. >   > Based on "subnet": > User can configure by subnet. It mean user can configure (10.1.1.254, > 255.255.255.0)'s PIM and IGMP configuration. And behavior is based on > subnet. It mean (10.1.1.254, 255.255.255.0) may send out all PIM and > IGMP packets. And (10.1.2.254, 255.255.255.0) can do same thing. > Switch will treat (10.1.1.254, 255.255.255.0) and (10.1.2.254, > 255.255.255.0) as different domain. >   >   >   > Thanks, >   > /Biker _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu Tue Jun 24 12:44:00 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 MAA23132 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:43:59 -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 h5OGdDX09166; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:39:13 -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 h5OGcbX09136 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:38:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mohamedriyazt_m@infosys.com) Received: from 192.168.200.82 by bosvwl01.infosys.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:37:58 -0400 Received: from BLRKECIMR01.ad.infosys.com ([192.168.200.58]) by INDHUBBHS02.ad.infosys.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Tue, 24 Jun 2003 22:07:13 +0530 Received: from kecmsg06.ad.infosys.com ([192.168.200.75]) by BLRKECIMR01.ad.infosys.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Tue, 24 Jun 2003 22:07:12 +0530 Received: from riyaz ([206.236.134.81]) by kecmsg06.ad.infosys.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Tue, 24 Jun 2003 22:07:12 +0530 Message-ID: <20ff01c33a6e$36bcc3e0$5186ecce@riyaz> From: "Riyaz, Mohamed." To: "biker" , "John Zwiebel" Cc: , References: Subject: Re: [pim] Ask a question about behavior of PIM and IGMP MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jun 2003 16:37:12.0413 (UTC) FILETIME=[DCF170D0:01C33A6E] 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, 24 Jun 2003 22:02:33 +0530 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The same case happens for IGMP aswell. IGMP messages will be sent by the Querier to 224.0.0.x address with TTL=1. So the IGMP messages being sent from the querier won't reach the other subnet ( assuing your 10.1.1.254/24 is primary interface, the IGMP messages won't reach 10.1.2.254/24, as its a different subnet and needs to routed ) Correct me if I've gone wrong Cheers -MR MOHAMED RIYAZ E mail : mohamedriyazt_m@infosys.com Ph : +91 80 5116 6203 I may not be there yet, but I'm closer than I was yesterday. ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Zwiebel" To: "biker" Cc: ; Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 9:52 PM Subject: Re: [pim] Ask a question about behavior of PIM and IGMP FWIW: Think about who the PIM hellos will be received by in both examples. You only want one DR elected on a "physical subnet" I interpret your "interface-based" example to mean a single VLAN. A single VLAN would be equivalent to a "physical subnet". If you were to configure two /24 addresses on a router interface, only the highest IP address would be elected the DR. (But you will be asking for trouble because unicast routing is going to be a problem. It has been recommended that you "don't do this".) On Tuesday, June 24, 2003, at 08:52 AM, biker wrote: > Hi all, > We are developing a layer3 switch product. We encounter a problem. > Is behavior and configuration of PIM and IGMP based on > "Interface"(vlan, port, etc)? or based on subnet? or others? > I had studied a lot of documents. I find many company use > "Interface-based". But I can't find any idea from formal > documents(RFC,...). > May you give some advice or tell me which document have mentioned > this. > > Following is example for this question. > > For example: > switch configuration: > Two vlan: > Vlan 1, Vlan 2 > > Four subnet: > (10.1.1.254, 255.255.255.0) associated to vlan1 > (10.1.2.254, 255.255.255.0) associated to vlan1 > (10.1.3.254, 255.255.255.0) associated to vlan2 > (10.1.4.254, 255.255.255.0) associated to vlan2 > > Base on "Interface": > Our configuration must based vlan. > for example: > User can configure by subnet. It mean user can configure vlan 1's PIM > and IGMP configuration. And behavior is based on subnet. It mean > switch must choose one subnet to send PIM and IGMP packets. This > subnet will be spokesman of vlan1. > Switch will treat (10.1.1.254, 255.255.255.0) and (10.1.2.254, > 255.255.255.0) as same multicast domain. > > Based on "subnet": > User can configure by subnet. It mean user can configure (10.1.1.254, > 255.255.255.0)'s PIM and IGMP configuration. And behavior is based on > subnet. It mean (10.1.1.254, 255.255.255.0) may send out all PIM and > IGMP packets. And (10.1.2.254, 255.255.255.0) can do same thing. > Switch will treat (10.1.1.254, 255.255.255.0) and (10.1.2.254, > 255.255.255.0) as different domain. > > > > Thanks, > > /Biker _______________________________________________ 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 Jun 24 12:45:36 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 MAA23175 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:45:35 -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 h5OGfOX09278; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:41:24 -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 h5OGcgX09140 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:38:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mohamedriyazt_m@infosys.com) Received: from 192.168.200.82 by bosvwl01.infosys.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:37:55 -0400 Received: from BLRKECIMR01.ad.infosys.com ([192.168.200.58]) by INDHUBBHS02.ad.infosys.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Tue, 24 Jun 2003 22:07:13 +0530 Received: from kecmsg06.ad.infosys.com ([192.168.200.75]) by BLRKECIMR01.ad.infosys.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Tue, 24 Jun 2003 22:07:12 +0530 Received: from riyaz ([206.236.134.81]) by kecmsg06.ad.infosys.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Tue, 24 Jun 2003 22:07:12 +0530 Message-ID: <20fe01c33a6e$368427b0$5186ecce@riyaz> From: "Riyaz, Mohamed." To: "biker" , "John Zwiebel" Cc: , References: Subject: Re: [pim] Ask a question about behavior of PIM and IGMP MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jun 2003 16:37:12.0038 (UTC) FILETIME=[DCB83860:01C33A6E] 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, 24 Jun 2003 22:02:32 +0530 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The same case happens for IGMP aswell. IGMP messages will be sent by the Querier to 224.0.0.x address with TTL=1. So the IGMP messages being sent from the querier won't reach the other subnet ( assuing your 10.1.1.254/24 is primary interface, the IGMP messages won't reach 10.1.2.254/24, as its a different subnet and needs to routed ) Correct me if I've gone wrong Cheers -MR MOHAMED RIYAZ E mail : mohamedriyazt_m@infosys.com Ph : +91 80 5116 6203 I may not be there yet, but I'm closer than I was yesterday. ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Zwiebel" To: "biker" Cc: ; Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 9:52 PM Subject: Re: [pim] Ask a question about behavior of PIM and IGMP FWIW: Think about who the PIM hellos will be received by in both examples. You only want one DR elected on a "physical subnet" I interpret your "interface-based" example to mean a single VLAN. A single VLAN would be equivalent to a "physical subnet". If you were to configure two /24 addresses on a router interface, only the highest IP address would be elected the DR. (But you will be asking for trouble because unicast routing is going to be a problem. It has been recommended that you "don't do this".) On Tuesday, June 24, 2003, at 08:52 AM, biker wrote: > Hi all, > We are developing a layer3 switch product. We encounter a problem. > Is behavior and configuration of PIM and IGMP based on > "Interface"(vlan, port, etc)? or based on subnet? or others? > I had studied a lot of documents. I find many company use > "Interface-based". But I can't find any idea from formal > documents(RFC,...). > May you give some advice or tell me which document have mentioned > this. > > Following is example for this question. > > For example: > switch configuration: > Two vlan: > Vlan 1, Vlan 2 > > Four subnet: > (10.1.1.254, 255.255.255.0) associated to vlan1 > (10.1.2.254, 255.255.255.0) associated to vlan1 > (10.1.3.254, 255.255.255.0) associated to vlan2 > (10.1.4.254, 255.255.255.0) associated to vlan2 > > Base on "Interface": > Our configuration must based vlan. > for example: > User can configure by subnet. It mean user can configure vlan 1's PIM > and IGMP configuration. And behavior is based on subnet. It mean > switch must choose one subnet to send PIM and IGMP packets. This > subnet will be spokesman of vlan1. > Switch will treat (10.1.1.254, 255.255.255.0) and (10.1.2.254, > 255.255.255.0) as same multicast domain. > > Based on "subnet": > User can configure by subnet. It mean user can configure (10.1.1.254, > 255.255.255.0)'s PIM and IGMP configuration. And behavior is based on > subnet. It mean (10.1.1.254, 255.255.255.0) may send out all PIM and > IGMP packets. And (10.1.2.254, 255.255.255.0) can do same thing. > Switch will treat (10.1.1.254, 255.255.255.0) and (10.1.2.254, > 255.255.255.0) as different domain. > > > > Thanks, > > /Biker _______________________________________________ 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 Wed Jun 25 00:15:51 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 AAA05366 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 00:15:50 -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 h5P3k4X21071; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 20:46:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from micro.ee.nthu.edu.tw (micro.ee.nthu.edu.tw [140.114.29.38]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h5P3iWX21027 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2003 20:44:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from biker@micro.ee.nthu.edu.tw) Received: from acctone087xzqz (61-218-220-18.HINET-IP.hinet.net [61.218.220.18]) by micro.ee.nthu.edu.tw (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD7625071; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:44:18 +0800 (CST) Message-ID: <005d01c33acc$13e99380$010ea8c0@accton.com.tw> From: "biker" To: "Riyaz, Mohamed." Cc: References: <002d01c33a68$a51f7d60$6503a8c0@accton.com.tw> <20e901c33a6c$f0a8f730$5186ecce@riyaz> Subject: Re: [pim] Ask a question about behavior of PIM and IGMP MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_005A_01C33B0F.206EB3E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 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: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:44:25 +0800 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_005A_01C33B0F.206EB3E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="big5" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks, Our switch support multi-netting. In our original design, we treat = 10.1.1.254 and 10.1.2.254 as same. If we treat 10.1.1.254 and 10.1.2.254 = are different, they may have duplicate packets in some case. For example: Two Router connect to same lan(LAN1) in vlan1. PIM and IGMP is running = in these routers. R_A:=20 vlan1: (10.1.1.254, 255.255.255.0), (10.1.2.253, 255.255.255.0) there have other vlan connect to other router. R_B: vlan1: (10.1.1.253, 255.255.255.0), (10.1.2.254, 255.255.255.0) there have other vlan connect to other router. For source 10.100.1.1, R_A and R_B had equal cost to this source.=20 There are two host(10.1.1.1 and 10.1.2.1) join 224.1.1.1. When 10.100.1.1 send multicast traffic to 224.1.1.1, there will have = duplicate multicast traffic in LAN1. Bcz 10.1.1.254 is assert winner for = (10.1.1.0, 255.255.255.0) and 10.1.2.254 will be assert winner for = (10.1.2.0, 255.255.255.0). It mean R_A and R_B will forward this = multicast traffic to LAN1 at same time. It will cause duplicate traffic. = But host in LAN1 just need one copy of multicast traffic. And we think = DVMRP will have same problem. So we decide to use "interface-based"(In our product, only vlan). It = mean our switch only send out one control packet and one copy of = multicast traffic in any vlan. And I had read other vendor's = manual(cisco, juniper, extreme,...). They all use "interface-based".=20 But our customer insist use "subnet-based" configuration and behavior. I = think it may cause trouble in future. I can't find any formal documents discuss how to handle multi-netting = issue in multicast related protocol(IGMP, DVMRP, PIM, ....).=20 ps: I had studied IGMP, MROUTE, DVMRP and PIM mib. They use ifIndex as = key of InterfaceTable. And ifIndex is imported from IF-MIB. And we don't = know whether subnet(10.1.1.253, 255.255.255.0) can be interface in = IF-MIB. Please give me some advices, Thanks, /Biker ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Riyaz, Mohamed.=20 To: biker=20 Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 12:23 AM Subject: Re: [pim] Ask a question about behavior of PIM and IGMP Hi Could you tell how are you assigning two distinct Ip addresses for one = VLAN ?. Does your switch support multi-netting ?. And to answer your = question : PIM and IGMP send control messages per interface. But I see a = security loop hole here. If say your primary interface is 10.1.1.254/24 = and the Ip 10.1.2.254/24 is also associated to it, the multicast packets = are getting onto 10.1.2.254 subnet un-necessarily.=20 Thanks -MR MOHAMED RIYAZ E mail : mohamedriyazt_m@infosys.com Ph : +91 80 5116 6203 I may not be there yet, but I'm closer than I was yesterday. ----- Original Message -----=20 From: biker=20 To: pim@catarina.usc.edu=20 Cc: biker@accton.com.tw=20 Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 9:22 PM Subject: [pim] Ask a question about behavior of PIM and IGMP Hi all, We are developing a layer3 switch product. We encounter a = problem. Is behavior and configuration of PIM and IGMP based on = "Interface"(vlan, port, etc)? or based on subnet? or others? I had studied a lot of documents. I find many company use = "Interface-based". But I can't find any idea from formal = documents(RFC,...). May you give some advice or tell me which document have = mentioned this. =20 Following is example for this question. For example: switch configuration: Two vlan: Vlan 1, Vlan 2 Four subnet: (10.1.1.254, 255.255.255.0) associated to vlan1 (10.1.2.254, 255.255.255.0) associated to vlan1 (10.1.3.254, 255.255.255.0) associated to vlan2=20 (10.1.4.254, 255.255.255.0) associated to vlan2 Base on "Interface": Our configuration must based vlan. for example: User can configure by subnet. It mean user can configure vlan 1's = PIM and IGMP configuration. And behavior is based on subnet. It mean = switch must choose one subnet to send PIM and IGMP packets. This subnet = will be spokesman of vlan1. Switch will treat (10.1.1.254, 255.255.255.0) and (10.1.2.254, = 255.255.255.0) as same multicast domain. Based on "subnet": User can configure by subnet. It mean user can configure = (10.1.1.254, 255.255.255.0)'s PIM and IGMP configuration. And behavior = is based on subnet. It mean (10.1.1.254, 255.255.255.0) may send out all = PIM and IGMP packets. And (10.1.2.254, 255.255.255.0) can do same thing. = Switch will treat (10.1.1.254, 255.255.255.0) and (10.1.2.254, = 255.255.255.0) as different domain. Thanks, /Biker ------=_NextPart_000_005A_01C33B0F.206EB3E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="big5" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks,
 
Our switch support multi-netting. In our original = design, we=20 treat 10.1.1.254 and 10.1.2.254 as same. If we treat 10.1.1.254 and = 10.1.2.254=20 are different, they may have duplicate packets in some = case.
 
For example:
Two Router connect to same lan(LAN1) in vlan1. PIM = and IGMP is=20 running in these routers.
 
R_A:
    vlan1: (10.1.1.254, = 255.255.255.0),=20 (10.1.2.253, 255.255.255.0)
    there have other vlan connect to = other=20 router.
 
R_B:
    vlan1: (10.1.1.253, = 255.255.255.0),=20 (10.1.2.254, 255.255.255.0)
    there have other vlan connect to = other=20 router.
 
For source 10.100.1.1, R_A and R_B had equal cost to = this=20 source.
 
There are two host(10.1.1.1 and 10.1.2.1) join=20 224.1.1.1.
 
When 10.100.1.1 send multicast traffic to 224.1.1.1, = there=20 will have duplicate multicast traffic in LAN1. Bcz 10.1.1.254 is assert = winner=20 for (10.1.1.0, 255.255.255.0) and 10.1.2.254 will be assert winner for=20 (10.1.2.0, 255.255.255.0). It mean R_A and R_B will forward this = multicast=20 traffic to LAN1 at same time. It will cause duplicate traffic. But host = in LAN1=20 just need one copy of multicast traffic. And we think DVMRP will have = same=20 problem.
 
So we decide to use "interface-based"(In our = product, only=20 vlan). It mean our switch only send out one control packet and one copy = of=20 multicast traffic in any vlan. And I had read other vendor's = manual(cisco,=20 juniper, extreme,...). They all use "interface-based".
But our customer insist use "subnet-based" = configuration and=20 behavior. I think it may cause trouble in future.
 
I can't find any formal documents discuss how to = handle=20 multi-netting issue in multicast related protocol(IGMP, DVMRP, PIM, = ....).=20
 
ps: I had studied IGMP, MROUTE, DVMRP and PIM mib. = They use=20 ifIndex as key of InterfaceTable. And ifIndex is imported from IF-MIB. = And we=20 don't know whether subnet(10.1.1.253, 255.255.255.0) can be = interface in=20 IF-MIB.
 
Please give me some advices,
 
 
Thanks,
 
/Biker
----- Original = Message -----
From:=20 Riyaz, Mohamed.
To: biker
Sent: = Wednesday, June 25, 2003 12:23=20 AM
Subject: Re: = [pim] Ask a question about=20 behavior of PIM and IGMP

Hi
 
Could you tell how are you = assigning two=20 distinct Ip addresses for one VLAN ?. Does your switch support=20 multi-netting ?. And to answer your question : PIM and IGMP send = control=20 messages per interface. But I see a security loop hole here. If say = your=20 primary interface is 10.1.1.254/24 and the Ip 10.1.2.254/24 is also = associated=20 to it, the multicast packets are getting onto 10.1.2.254 subnet=20 un-necessarily.
 
Thanks
-MR
 
MOHAMED RIYAZ
E mail : mohamedriyazt_m@infosys.com
Ph=20 : +91 80 5116 6203
 
I may not be there yet, but I'm closer than I was = yesterday.
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 biker
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 = 9:22=20 PM
Subject: [pim] Ask a question = about=20 behavior of PIM and IGMP

Hi all,
    We are developing a layer3 = switch=20 product. We encounter a problem. Is behavior and configuration of = PIM and=20 IGMP based on "Interface"(vlan, port, etc)? or based on=20 subnet? or others?
    I had studied a lot of = documents. I=20 find many company use "Interface-based". But I can't find any = idea=20 from formal documents(RFC,...).
    May you give some advice or = tell me=20 which document have mentioned this.
   
    Following is example for this = question.
 
For example:
switch configuration:
Two vlan:
    Vlan 1, Vlan 2
 
Four subnet:
(10.1.1.254, 255.255.255.0) associated to=20 vlan1
(10.1.2.254, 255.255.255.0) associated to=20 vlan1
(10.1.3.254, 255.255.255.0) associated to vlan2=20
(10.1.4.254, 255.255.255.0) associated to=20 vlan2
 
Base on "Interface":
Our configuration must based vlan.
for example:
User can configure by subnet. It mean user can configure vlan = 1's PIM=20 and IGMP configuration. And behavior is based on subnet. It mean = switch must=20 choose one subnet to send PIM and IGMP packets. This subnet will be=20 spokesman of vlan1.
Switch will treat (10.1.1.254, 255.255.255.0) and = (10.1.2.254,=20 255.255.255.0) as same multicast domain.
 
Based on "subnet":
User can configure by subnet. It mean user can configure=20 (10.1.1.254, 255.255.255.0)'s PIM and IGMP configuration. And = behavior is=20 based on subnet. It mean (10.1.1.254, 255.255.255.0) may send out = all PIM=20 and IGMP packets. And (10.1.2.254, 255.255.255.0) can do same thing. =
Switch will treat (10.1.1.254, 255.255.255.0) and (10.1.2.254,=20 255.255.255.0) as different domain.
 
 
 
Thanks,
 
=
/Biker
------=_NextPart_000_005A_01C33B0F.206EB3E0-- _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim