From 558-mailing-list-admin@catarina.usc.edu Tue Jul 1 08:11:49 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 IAA11770 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 08:11:48 -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 h61CBKX95694 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2003 05:11:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from 558-mailing-list-admin@catarina.usc.edu) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 05:11:19 -0700 Message-ID: <20030701121119.91553.36341.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 Jul 2 17:53:46 2003 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [204.57.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21471 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:53:45 -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 h62LmD501110; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 14:48:13 -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 h62Ljj501054 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 14:45:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lwei@redback.com) Received: from prattle.redback.com (hiddenuser@prattle.redback.com [155.53.12.9]) by usc.edu (8.9.3.1/8.9.3/usc) with ESMTP id NAA10423 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:51:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from liming-pc.redback.com (liming-pc.redback.com [155.53.44.79]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6ACC61F3E9 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:49:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from lwei@localhost) by liming-pc.redback.com (8.11.3nb1/8.8.8/null redback bsdclient) id h62Kn1L15831; Wed, 2 Jul 2003 13:49:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200307022049.h62Kn1L15831@liming-pc.redback.com> From: Liming Wei To: pim@catarina.usc.edu Reply-To: lwei@redback.com Subject: [pim] Vienna PIM WG meeting: call for agenda items 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, 2 Jul 2003 13:49:01 -0700 (PDT) Hello folks, Here is another call for agenda items for the Vienna PIM WG meeting. We will have an one hour slot on Tuesday afternoon. Please specify the title and time needed. Thanks. -Liming _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu Thu Jul 17 06:01:05 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 GAA27833 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 06:01:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6H9nJt7091403; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 02:49:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from prattle.redback.com (hiddenuser@prattle.redback.com [155.53.12.9]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6H9nGt6091399 for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 02:49:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lwei@redback.com) Received: from liming-pc.redback.com (liming-pc.redback.com [155.53.44.79]) by prattle.redback.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EC401F556F for ; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 02:49:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from lwei@localhost)h6H9nGt07570; Thu, 17 Jul 2003 02:49:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 02:49:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200307170949.h6H9nGt07570@liming-pc.redback.com> From: Liming Wei To: pim@catarina.usc.edu Subject: [pim] [lorenzo@cisco.com: PIM meeting minutes] X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: lwei@redback.com List-Id: The IETF PIM working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu Thanks to Lorenzo, now we have the following minutes for the PIM WG minutes. I did minor editing to correct the spelling of names etc. Again, I'd like to issue another request for reviewers on the specs, especially the PIM-SM spec. As a working group, we need to make forward progress. We need at least 2 or 3 more reviewers, in addition to Nidhi (thanks Nidhi), and we need to get the reviews done in 1 month after this IETF. -Liming From: Lorenzo Vicisano Subject: PIM meeting minutes Mark Handley updates on PIM-SM ================= There appeared to be (*,*,RP) inconsistency in the spec .. it turned out that the spec was correct, but hard to understand proposal is to leave the current specification, but add better description. Open issues: - Null register .. some of the fields are not fully specified Cisco and Juniper do different things - No Checksum .. it's a problem for v6 (that doesn't have IP checksum) What do do ? comment: firewall are checking the inside packet in the register.. Bill: there is nothing to check in NULL register No directions where given .. the authors will decide - Sanity check on the spec by Pavlin Radoslavov - ready for last call, but need reviewers. Nidhi Baskar volunteered.. one more ? Bidir Updates Isidor Kouvelas =============== Revised version submitted 2 weeks ago changes: RP replaced by RPA and RPL The RP in bidir does not have any special function. The RPL (the ling where the RP Address belong) is what counts. DF election does not occur in the RPL clarified election in the RPF interface Joins sent to the wrong RPF are recorded by the target, to improve convergency at a later stage Added more description text on DF election Lorenzo Added security consideration open issues: Per-Group load balancing Long discussion.. decided to modify the spec in an non-interoperable way to allow this. BSR hashing breaks scalability of upstream forwarding scalability and elimination of data-driven events. decided to get rid of BSR-hashing Dino Farinacci on anycast-RP PIM spec Version 0 in Jan presented at SF. Got some feedback. Dino will update to draft 1. Add as WG item ? Tom and Liming are in favor. Lorenzo: need requirements Dino: for v4 or v6? both [missed part of this because was talking] Alex Zinin: if we add work we need to revise the agenda. But he wants to see progress by next ietf. authors: SM and bidir should be ready to go to IESG by next IETF ADs to talk with Chairs before deciding on item addition Giuliano: should PIM WG take embedded RP ? Liming: feel it's mostly operational Dave: MBONED WG already accepted it as WG item Mark: not accepted until discussed on the mboned list Charter Updates Milestones: - any comments? No comments. ------- End of forwarded message ------- _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu Fri Jul 18 10:12:40 2003 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [204.57.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA01796 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:12:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6IDqCt7019948; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 06:56:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from mta5.x263.net (smtp.263.net [211.150.96.25]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6IDpnt6019938 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 06:52:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fengbo@263.net) Received: from RavProxy (mta5 [127.0.0.1]) by mta5.x263.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC6772FA98 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 21:51:35 +0800 (CST) Received: from RavProxy (unknown [61.149.48.16]) by antispam-4 (Coremail:www.263.net) with SMTP id 5hBTAWf7Fz8pCTAQ.1 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2003 21:51:36 +0800 (CST) X-Originating-IP: [61.149.48.16] From: "=?GB2312?Q?=B7=EB=B2=A9?=" To: "pim@catarina.usc.edu" Organization: Huawei Beijing Insitute X-mailer: Foxmail 4.2 [cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="GB2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 21:52:35 +0800 Message-Id: <20030718135135.BC6772FA98@mta5.x263.net> Subject: [pim] Who has the old draft: draft-ietf-pim-dm-05.txt X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: fengbo@263.net List-Id: The IETF PIM working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, I've heard of the old version of PIM is version 1. I'm very interested in the old PIM and want to know how PIM developed from v1 to v2. But I don't have the draft:"draft-ietf-pim-dm-05". If any one has it, please send the draft it me. Thank you very much. Bob _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu Mon Jul 21 21:36:52 2003 Received: from catarina.usc.edu (catarina.usc.edu [204.57.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA16972 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 21:36:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6M1XEt7091821; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 18:33:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6M1XCt6091815 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 18:33:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kouvelas@cisco.com) Received: from cisco.com (kouvelas-u10.cisco.com [128.107.162.231]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h6M1X4Ql028270; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 18:33:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200307220133.h6M1X4Ql028270@sj-core-1.cisco.com> To: pim@catarina.usc.edu Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 18:33:04 -0700 From: Isidor Kouvelas cc: Mark Handley cc: lorenzo@cisco.com cc: speakman@cisco.com cc: kouvelas@cisco.com Subject: [pim] BIDIR PIM load balancing X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: The IETF PIM working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu IMPORTANT: Following discusses a change in the bidir protocol that is possibly incompatible with implementations of the current spec. Please read if you have a BIDIR PIM implementation. A Bidir PIM spec update was presented during the Vienna IETF PIM WG meeting. Slides for the presentation are included below in MGP format. I am sending this email to solicit opinions on a specific point that was discussed in Vienna. The point has to do with DF election load balancing. In the current Bidir PIM spec (draft-ietf-pim-bidir-05.txt,.ps) the metric comparison rules used in the DF election do not take into consideration the Rendezvous Point Address (RPA). As a result, if two RPAs are configured in a network to serve different group ranges and both these RPAs are on the same subnet, then the shared trees for the two RPAs will be identical. This will happen because on each subnet in the domain the same upstream router (towards the RPA link) will be elected as the DF for both RPAs. In order to introduce the possibility of load balancing in bidir and allow the distribution trees for different RPAs with the same RPL to diverge, the DF election metric comparison mechanism must be modified to take the RPA into consideration. Instead of simply comparing metrics and tie-breaking using the advertising router IP address, the comparison must use as a tie-breaker a hash calculated using both the advertising router IP address AND the Rendezvous Point Address (RPA). In the Vienna meeting it was agreed that such functionality makes sense to add to the spec. However, if this functionality is added to the spec without requiring negotiation through a hello option then it introduces an incopatibility with existing implementations. If a router that takes into consideration the RPA address is present on a link with an older router that does not and there is a tie in the metrics to reach the RPA, then the two routers may both think they should win the DF election and therefore the election will never converge with a winner (thus preventing tree creation and data propagation). At this point the members of the WG present in Vienna were asked whether introducing such an incompatibility at this stage was acceptable or if instead we should create a new hello option to negotiate the use of the RPA in the DF election metric comarison. Everyone present seemed to agree that the hello option is not necessary and that we can simply make the incompatible change. I am sending this email to the list to make sure that there are no members that were not present in Vienna that have a problem with this decision. thanks Isidor %include "/usr/home/kouvelas/lib/default.mgp" %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %page %nodefault %size 8, font "roman", fore "white", vgap 20 %back "blue" %center Bidir PIM update %size 5, font "roman", fore "white", vgap 20 draft-ietf-pim-bidir-05 %size 4 Mark Handley Isidor Kouvelas Tony Speakman Lorenzo Vicisano %page Summary of Changes Changes from draft-04 to draft-05: Rendezvous Point (RP) replaced by Rendezvous Point Address (RPA) and Rendezvous Point Link (RPL). Clarified that infinite metric (worse possible metric) MUST be used in DF election messages on RPF interface. Received PIM Joins targeted at non-DF routers are now stored by the target to improve convergence speed. ONLY the DF may forward traffic downstream. A non-DF receiving a join may only start forwarding after winning the election. Expanded DF election event description. Added security considerations section. Possible future mods: DF election load balancing through RPA hashing. No BSR hashing for Bidir? %page RPA and RPL replace RP The RP in bidir PIM does not need to be an actual router as there are no special RP functions to perform. In the previous draft the DF election did not work on the link containing the RP address (non-RP could win IP address comparison). Fixed by replacing the concept of a Rendezvous Point with that of the Rendezvous Point Address (RPA) and a Rendezvous Point Link (RPL) (link containing RPA). Specified that DF election does not take place on RPL. If RPA belongs to a real router then that router has no special function and MUST still forward traffic upstream onto the RPL. %page DF Election Load Balancing DF election determines RPF neighbour to reach RPA on MRIB indicated RPF interface. Two or more upstream routers may have equal cost paths to the RPA. Per-group load balancing (as with Sparse-Mode PIM) is not possible. It is possible to configure multiple (two or more) RPAs on the same link and influence tree construction for each RPA. Instead of tie-breaking the DF election using the IP address of the router advertising the metric, a hash combining the router IP address and the RPA can be used. Is this useful? If so then do we care about backward compatibility with current implementations (i.e. need a hello option to negotiate hashing). %page No BSR hashing for Bidir Upstream forwarding in bidir can be achieved without any data driven events or group specific state. This requires a (*,G/mask) forwarding entry. To implement BSR hashing forwarding engine must be aware of hash function as well as the RP addresses. _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu Tue Jul 22 00:11:10 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 AAA18861 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 00:11:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6M48Ft7093820; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 21:08:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from exch-srv.CoronaNetworks.com ([205.219.34.104]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6M489t6093814 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 21:08:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from manish@coronanetworks.com) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 21:05:00 -0700 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: IGMPv3 - PIM-Dm and SSM Issue? Thread-Index: AcNQB0lgn0V/7rusEdetWAADR2JRFQ== From: "Manish Kumar" To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by catarina.usc.edu id h6M489t6093814 Subject: [pim] IGMPv3 - PIM-Dm and SSM Issue? X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: The IETF PIM working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, I would like to know how a IGMP-v3 receiver lying on a PIM-DM domain receives data packet from source lying in a PIM-SSM domain? PC-----dm------R1 ----dm-----R2-----sm----R3-----sm---Source (igmp-v3 join) R2 is connected on one side with SM router and other side with Dm router. R2 and R3 supports PIM-SSM, no RPs. In PIM-DM, how can igmpv3 join be propagated towards the source? How does interdomain multicast work with PIM-SSM and PIM-DM? Am I missing something or above scenario is never possible? Let me know. Thanks in advance, Manish _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu Tue Jul 22 01:42:34 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 BAA20255 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 01:42:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6M5dSt7094984; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:39:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from web8207.mail.in.yahoo.com (web8207.mail.in.yahoo.com [203.199.70.76]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id h6M5dPt6094980 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:39:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jaganbabu_pim@yahoo.co.in) Message-ID: <20030722053918.98231.qmail@web8207.mail.in.yahoo.com> Received: from [203.200.49.170] by web8207.mail.in.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 06:39:18 BST Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 06:39:18 +0100 (BST) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Rajamanickam=20jaganbabu?= Subject: Re: [pim] IGMPv3 - PIM-Dm and SSM Issue? To: Manish Kumar , pim@catarina.usc.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: The IETF PIM working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============61587016648302528==" Sender: pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu --===============61587016648302528== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1603628353-1058852358=:97892" --0-1603628353-1058852358=:97892 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Manish, Yes you are right, in your case the packet will be droped at R3 itself. This is not only in the case of SSM joins grenerated from the PC, it will happen even PC sends IGMP (*,G) joins. Mulitcast packet will never reach from R3 to R1 according to your topology. If the receiver is on the other side of your topology (i.e PC connected to R3 and if the source is connected to R1) then there is possible of PC receiving the packets from the "source". Thanx, Jags Manish Kumar wrote: Hi, I would like to know how a IGMP-v3 receiver lying on a PIM-DM domain receives data packet from source lying in a PIM-SSM domain? PC-----dm------R1 ----dm-----R2-----sm----R3-----sm---Source (igmp-v3 join) R2 is connected on one side with SM router and other side with Dm router. R2 and R3 supports PIM-SSM, no RPs. In PIM-DM, how can igmpv3 join be propagated towards the source? How does interdomain multicast work with PIM-SSM and PIM-DM? Am I missing something or above scenario is never possible? Let me know. Thanks in advance, Manish _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger;Download latest version. --0-1603628353-1058852358=:97892 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hi Manish,
  Yes you are right, in your case the packet will be droped at R3 itself. This is not only in the case of SSM joins grenerated from the PC, it will happen even PC sends IGMP (*,G) joins. Mulitcast packet will never reach from R3 to R1 according to your topology.
  If the receiver is on the other side of your topology (i.e PC connected to R3 and if the source is connected to R1) then there is possible of PC receiving the packets from the "source".
   
Thanx,
Jags 

Manish Kumar <manish@coronanetworks.com> wrote:
Hi,

I would like to know how a IGMP-v3 receiver lying on a PIM-DM domain receives data packet from source lying in a PIM-SSM domain?

PC-----dm------R1 ----dm-----R2-----sm----R3-----sm---Source
(igmp-v3 join)

R2 is connected on one side with SM router and other side with Dm router.

R2 and R3 supports PIM-SSM, no RPs.

In PIM-DM, how can igmpv3 join be propagated towards the source?
How does interdomain multicast work with PIM-SSM and PIM-DM?

Am I missing something or above scenario is never possible?

Let me know.

Thanks in advance,
Manish



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

Yahoo! India Mobile SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger; Download latest version. --0-1603628353-1058852358=:97892-- --===============61587016648302528== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim --===============61587016648302528==-- From pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu Tue Jul 22 16:09:30 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 QAA25417 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:09:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6MK5Xt7006519; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 13:05:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from exch-srv.CoronaNetworks.com ([205.219.34.104]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6MK5Wt6006511 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 13:05:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from manish@coronanetworks.com) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: [pim] IGMPv3 - PIM-Dm and SSM Issue? Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 13:02:25 -0700 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [pim] IGMPv3 - PIM-Dm and SSM Issue? Thread-Index: AcNQEzD00lq2Om/HSQmrBmJXfvy3BgAeJ2cQ From: "Manish Kumar" To: "Rajamanickam jaganbabu" , X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: The IETF PIM working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============39805058406709559==" Sender: pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============39805058406709559== content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C3508C.2B6FBD0B" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3508C.2B6FBD0B Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks Jags and Maneesh, =20 The reason I asked about receiver generating igmp v3 (S,G) join is = because of the fact that source is lying on the PIM-SSM domain. I was = just trying to find out whether there is any mechanism by which S,G join = is propagated to the border router. =20 If the other domain is PIM-SM, then it is possible to receive data as = border router will send (*,*,Rp) join and pull the data from the source = and then flood it into the Dm domain. =20 Does this mean that PIM-SSM and PIM-DM will never work together? To me it looks like, it may be a valid case in deployment. As Maneesh = said by configuring IGMP static join at R2 will make it work. But it = needs user intervention. =20 Maneesh, in other scenarios, as u said, it would work. =20 Thanks, Manish =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: Rajamanickam jaganbabu [mailto:jaganbabu_pim@yahoo.co.in] Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 10:39 PM To: Manish Kumar; pim@catarina.usc.edu Subject: Re: [pim] IGMPv3 - PIM-Dm and SSM Issue? Hi Manish, Yes you are right, in your case the packet will be droped at R3 = itself. This is not only in the case of SSM joins grenerated from the = PC, it will happen even PC sends IGMP (*,G) joins. Mulitcast packet will = never reach from R3 to R1 according to your topology. If the receiver is on the other side of your topology (i.e PC = connected to R3 and if the source is connected to R1) then there is = possible of PC receiving the packets from the "source". =20 Thanx, Jags=20 Manish Kumar wrote: Hi, I would like to know how a IGMP-v3 receiver lying on a PIM-DM domain = receives data packet from source lying in a PIM-SSM domain? PC-----dm------R1 ----dm-----R2-----sm----R3-----sm---Source (igmp-v3 join) R2 is connected on one side with SM router and other side with Dm = router. R2 and R3 supports PIM-SSM, no RPs. In PIM-DM, how can igmpv3 join be propagated towards the source? How does interdomain multicast work with PIM-SSM and PIM-DM? Am I missing something or above scenario is never possible? Let me know. Thanks in advance, Manish _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim Yahoo! India Mobile = SMS using the Yahoo! = Messenger; Download = latest version. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3508C.2B6FBD0B Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thanks=20 Jags and Maneesh,
 
The=20 reason I asked about receiver generating igmp v3 (S,G) join is because = of the=20 fact that source is lying on the PIM-SSM domain. I was just trying to = find out=20 whether there is any mechanism by which S,G join is propagated to the = border=20 router.
 
If the=20 other domain is PIM-SM, then it is possible to receive data as border = router=20 will send (*,*,Rp) join and pull the data from the source and then flood = it into=20 the Dm domain.
 
Does=20 this mean that PIM-SSM and PIM-DM will never work = together?
To me=20 it looks like, it may be a valid case in deployment. As Maneesh said by=20 configuring IGMP static join at R2 will make it work. But it needs user=20 intervention.
 
Maneesh, in other scenarios, as u said, =  it would=20 work.
 
Thanks,
Manish
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Rajamanickam = jaganbabu=20 [mailto:jaganbabu_pim@yahoo.co.in]
Sent: Monday, July 21, = 2003 10:39=20 PM
To: Manish Kumar; pim@catarina.usc.edu
Subject: = Re:=20 [pim] IGMPv3 - PIM-Dm and SSM Issue?

Hi Manish,
  Yes you are right, in your case the packet will be droped = at R3=20 itself. This is not only in the case of SSM joins grenerated from the = PC, it=20 will happen even PC sends IGMP (*,G) joins. Mulitcast packet will = never=20 reach from R3 to R1 according to your topology.
  If the receiver is on the other side of your topology = (i.e PC=20 connected to R3 and if the source is connected to R1) then there is = possible=20 of PC receiving the packets from the "source".
   
Thanx,
Jags 

Manish Kumar=20 <manish@coronanetworks.com> wrote:
Hi,

I=20 would like to know how a IGMP-v3 receiver lying on a PIM-DM domain = receives=20 data packet from source lying in a PIM-SSM = domain?

PC-----dm------R1=20 ----dm-----R2-----sm----R3-----sm---Source
(igmp-v3 = join)

R2 is=20 connected on one side with SM router and other side with Dm=20 router.

R2 and R3 supports PIM-SSM, no RPs.

In PIM-DM, = how can=20 igmpv3 join be propagated towards the source?
How does = interdomain=20 multicast work with PIM-SSM and PIM-DM?

Am I missing = something or=20 above scenario is never possible?

Let me know.

Thanks = in=20 = advance,
Manish



_______________________________________= ________
pim=20 mailing=20 = list
pim@catarina.usc.edu
http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/= pim

3D"Yahoo! SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger; = Download latest=20 version.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C3508C.2B6FBD0B-- --===============39805058406709559== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim --===============39805058406709559==-- From pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu Wed Jul 23 02:36:21 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 CAA03413 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 02:36:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6N6Wdt7015142; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:32:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from web8203.mail.in.yahoo.com (web8203.mail.in.yahoo.com [203.199.70.117]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id h6N6Wat6015137 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:32:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jaganbabu_pim@yahoo.co.in) Message-ID: <20030723063229.61554.qmail@web8203.mail.in.yahoo.com> Received: from [203.126.136.170] by web8203.mail.in.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 07:32:29 BST Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 07:32:29 +0100 (BST) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Rajamanickam=20jaganbabu?= Subject: RE: [pim] IGMPv3 - PIM-Dm and SSM Issue? To: Manish Kumar , pim@catarina.usc.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: The IETF PIM working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============68354497702850314==" Sender: pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu --===============68354497702850314== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1489987764-1058941949=:61282" --0-1489987764-1058941949=:61282 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Manish, I think at present there is no mechanism to propogate Source specific joins to the Border router which just supports PIM DM on one interface and PIM-SSM on the other interface. Actually your are talking about very small network, where you said you can do user intervention to push the packet to the other domain, but this is not a permenant solution, I think if we enhance DWR draft to support to propogate SSM specific informations to the border router, then it is possible to have the scenario which you have mentioned (this is just a sugession, if iam wrong please correct me). Note: This should be done only for SSM group. Thanx, Jags Manish Kumar wrote: Thanks Jags and Maneesh, The reason I asked about receiver generating igmp v3 (S,G) join is because of the fact that source is lying on the PIM-SSM domain. I was just trying to find out whether there is any mechanism by which S,G join is propagated to the border router. If the other domain is PIM-SM, then it is possible to receive data as border router will send (*,*,Rp) join and pull the data from the source and then flood it into the Dm domain. Does this mean that PIM-SSM and PIM-DM will never work together? To me it looks like, it may be a valid case in deployment. As Maneesh said by configuring IGMP static join at R2 will make it work. But it needs user intervention. Maneesh, in other scenarios, as u said, it would work. Thanks, Manish -----Original Message----- From: Rajamanickam jaganbabu [mailto:jaganbabu_pim@yahoo.co.in] Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 10:39 PM To: Manish Kumar; pim@catarina.usc.edu Subject: Re: [pim] IGMPv3 - PIM-Dm and SSM Issue? Hi Manish, Yes you are right, in your case the packet will be droped at R3 itself. This is not only in the case of SSM joins grenerated from the PC, it will happen even PC sends IGMP (*,G) joins. Mulitcast packet will never reach from R3 to R1 according to your topology. If the receiver is on the other side of your topology (i.e PC connected to R3 and if the source is connected to R1) then there is possible of PC receiving the packets from the "source". Thanx, Jags Manish Kumar wrote: Hi, I would like to know how a IGMP-v3 receiver lying on a PIM-DM domain receives data packet from source lying in a PIM-SSM domain? PC-----dm------R1 ----dm-----R2-----sm----R3-----sm---Source (igmp-v3 join) R2 is connected on one side with SM router and other side with Dm router. R2 and R3 supports PIM-SSM, no RPs. In PIM-DM, how can igmpv3 join be propagated towards the source? How does interdomain multicast work with PIM-SSM and PIM-DM? Am I missing something or above scenario is never possible? Let me know. Thanks in advance, Manish _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger; Download latest version. _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger;Download latest version. --0-1489987764-1058941949=:61282 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hi Manish,
   I think at present there is no mechanism to propogate Source specific joins to the Border router which just supports PIM DM on one interface and PIM-SSM on the other interface.
   Actually your are talking about very small network, where you said you can do user intervention to push the packet to the other domain, but this is not a permenant solution, I think if we enhance DWR draft to support to propogate SSM specific informations to the border router, then it is possible to have the scenario which you have mentioned (this is just a  sugession, if iam wrong please correct me).
 
  Note:
    This should be done only for SSM group.
 
 
Thanx,
Jags
 

Manish Kumar <manish@coronanetworks.com> wrote:
Thanks Jags and Maneesh,
 
The reason I asked about receiver generating igmp v3 (S,G) join is because of the fact that source is lying on the PIM-SSM domain. I was just trying to find out whether there is any mechanism by which S,G join is propagated to the border router.
 
If the other domain is PIM-SM, then it is possible to receive data as border router will send (*,*,Rp) join and pull the data from the source and then flood it into the Dm domain.
 
Does this mean that PIM-SSM and PIM-DM will never work together?
To me it looks like, it may be a valid case in deployment. As Maneesh said by configuring IGMP static join at R2 will make it work. But it needs user intervention.
 
Maneesh, in other scenarios, as u said,  it would work.
 
Thanks,
Manish
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Rajamanickam jaganbabu [mailto:jaganbabu_pim@yahoo.co.in]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 10:39 PM
To: Manish Kumar; pim@catarina.usc.edu
Subject: Re: [pim] IGMPv3 - PIM-Dm and SSM Issue?

Hi Manish,
  Yes you are right, in your case the packet will be droped at R3 itself. This is not only in the case of SSM joins grenerated from the PC, it will happen even PC sends IGMP (*,G) joins. Mulitcast packet will never reach from R3 to R1 according to your topology.
  If the receiver is on the other side of your topology (i.e PC connected to R3 and if the source is connected to R1) then there is possible of PC receiving the packets from the "source".
   
Thanx,
Jags 

Manish Kumar <manish@coronanetworks.com> wrote:
Hi,

I would like to know how a IGMP-v3 receiver lying on a PIM-DM domain receives data packet from source lying in a PIM-SSM domain?

PC-----dm------R1 ----dm-----R2-----sm----R3-----sm---Source
(igmp-v3 join)

R2 is connected on one side with SM router and other side with Dm router.

R2 and R3 supports PIM-SSM, no RPs.

In PIM-DM, how can igmpv3 join be propagated towards the source?
How does interdomain multicast work with PIM-SSM and PIM-DM?

Am I missing something or above scenario is never possible?

Let me know.

Thanks in advance,
Manish



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

Yahoo! India Mobile SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger; Download latest version.

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

Yahoo! India Mobile SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger; Download latest version. --0-1489987764-1058941949=:61282-- --===============68354497702850314== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim --===============68354497702850314==-- From pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu Wed Jul 23 09:26:50 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 JAA11889 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:26:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6NDNft7020811; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 06:23:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from multicasttech.com (IDENT:root@lennon.multicasttech.com [63.105.122.7]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6NDNet6020807 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 06:23:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marshall_eubanks@multicasttech.com) Received: from [160.39.137.191] (account ) by multicasttech.com (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 3.4.8) with HTTP id 1716707; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:23:37 -0400 From: "Marshall Eubanks" Subject: Re: [pim] IGMPv3 - PIM-Dm and SSM Issue? To: Rajamanickam jaganbabu , Manish Kumar , pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro Web Mailer v.3.4.8 Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:23:37 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20030723063229.61554.qmail@web8203.mail.in.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: The IETF PIM working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 07:32:29 +0100 (BST) Rajamanickam jaganbabu wrote: > Hi Manish, > I think at present there is no mechanism to propogate Source specific > joins to the Border router which just supports PIM DM on one interface and > PIM-SSM on the other interface. > Actually your are talking about very small network, where you said you can > do user intervention to push the packet to the other domain, but this is not > a permenant solution, I think if we enhance DWR draft to support to propogate > SSM specific informations to the border router, then it is possible to have > the scenario which you have mentioned (this is just a sugession, if iam > wrong please correct me). I am confused here - all inter-domain joins at present are (S,G) and, of course, the first hop router turns IGMP membership requests into PIM joins. So if there is a border router between a PIM SM and a PIM DM domain, why does it matter that the joins are SSM or not ? How does the BR even know this ? Or is the trouble that this is not really two domains ? Regards Marshall Eubanks > > Note: > This should be done only for SSM group. > > > Thanx, > Jags > > > Manish Kumar wrote: > Thanks Jags and Maneesh, > > The reason I asked about receiver generating igmp v3 (S,G) join is because of > the fact that source is lying on the PIM-SSM domain. I was just trying to > find out whether there is any mechanism by which S,G join is propagated to > the border router. > > If the other domain is PIM-SM, then it is possible to receive data as border > router will send (*,*,Rp) join and pull the data from the source and then > flood it into the Dm domain. > > Does this mean that PIM-SSM and PIM-DM will never work together? > To me it looks like, it may be a valid case in deployment. As Maneesh said by > configuring IGMP static join at R2 will make it work. But it needs user > intervention. > > Maneesh, in other scenarios, as u said, it would work. > > Thanks, > Manish > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rajamanickam jaganbabu [mailto:jaganbabu_pim@yahoo.co.in] > Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 10:39 PM > To: Manish Kumar; pim@catarina.usc.edu > Subject: Re: [pim] IGMPv3 - PIM-Dm and SSM Issue? > > > Hi Manish, > Yes you are right, in your case the packet will be droped at R3 itself. > This is not only in the case of SSM joins grenerated from the PC, it will > happen even PC sends IGMP (*,G) joins. Mulitcast packet will never reach from > R3 to R1 according to your topology. > If the receiver is on the other side of your topology (i.e PC connected to > R3 and if the source is connected to R1) then there is possible of PC > receiving the packets from the "source". > > Thanx, > Jags > > Manish Kumar wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to know how a IGMP-v3 receiver lying on a PIM-DM domain receives > data packet from source lying in a PIM-SSM domain? > > PC-----dm------R1 ----dm-----R2-----sm----R3-----sm---Source > (igmp-v3 join) > > R2 is connected on one side with SM router and other side with Dm router. > > R2 and R3 supports PIM-SSM, no RPs. > > In PIM-DM, how can igmpv3 join be propagated towards the source? > How does interdomain multicast work with PIM-SSM and PIM-DM? > > Am I missing something or above scenario is never possible? > > Let me know. > > Thanks in advance, > Manish > > > > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@catarina.usc.edu > http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim > > SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger; Download latest version. > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@catarina.usc.edu > http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim > > > SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger;Download latest version. _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu Wed Jul 23 11:29:58 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 LAA16952 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:29:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6NFR0t7022533; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 08:27:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from fsnt.future.futsoft.com ([203.197.140.35]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6NFQtt6022510 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 08:26:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from prashantj@future.futsoft.com) Received: from kailash.future.futsoft.com (unverified) by fsnt.future.futsoft.com; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 21:03:02 +0530 Received: from prashantj (prashantj.future.futsoft.com [10.4.5.41]) h6NFET0r019005; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 20:44:29 +0530 From: "Prashant Jhingran" To: "'Marshall Eubanks'" , "'Rajamanickam jaganbabu'" , "'Manish Kumar'" , Subject: RE: [pim] IGMPv3 - PIM-Dm and SSM Issue? Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 20:46:13 +0530 Message-Id: <003501c3512d$5b4a9ae0$2905040a@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 V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: prashantj@future.futsoft.com List-Id: The IETF PIM working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well Quite true Marshall, DM is a flood & prune oriented protocol whereas SM is receiver oriented. Therefore the following doubt looks a bit confusing:- "> In PIM-DM, how can igmpv3 join be propagated towards the source?" In DM, I think we always prune the source (in case if we don't want the traffic)coz once source comes up, it automatically starts flooding the network. Regarding the BR behavior actually speaking the multicast Interop RFC lacks in clarifying some issues & I think they have been discussed at length on the mailing list and they really require clarifications. Once clarified, we won't have such doubts. regards, Prashant -----Original Message----- From: pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu [mailto:pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu]On Behalf Of Marshall Eubanks Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 6:54 PM To: Rajamanickam jaganbabu; Manish Kumar; pim@catarina.usc.edu Subject: Re: [pim] IGMPv3 - PIM-Dm and SSM Issue? On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 07:32:29 +0100 (BST) Rajamanickam jaganbabu wrote: > Hi Manish, > I think at present there is no mechanism to propogate Source specific > joins to the Border router which just supports PIM DM on one interface and > PIM-SSM on the other interface. > Actually your are talking about very small network, where you said you can > do user intervention to push the packet to the other domain, but this is not > a permenant solution, I think if we enhance DWR draft to support to propogate > SSM specific informations to the border router, then it is possible to have > the scenario which you have mentioned (this is just a sugession, if iam > wrong please correct me). I am confused here - all inter-domain joins at present are (S,G) and, of course, the first hop router turns IGMP membership requests into PIM joins. So if there is a border router between a PIM SM and a PIM DM domain, why does it matter that the joins are SSM or not ? How does the BR even know this ? Or is the trouble that this is not really two domains ? Regards Marshall Eubanks > > Note: > This should be done only for SSM group. > > > Thanx, > Jags > > > Manish Kumar wrote: > Thanks Jags and Maneesh, > > The reason I asked about receiver generating igmp v3 (S,G) join is because of > the fact that source is lying on the PIM-SSM domain. I was just trying to > find out whether there is any mechanism by which S,G join is propagated to > the border router. > > If the other domain is PIM-SM, then it is possible to receive data as border > router will send (*,*,Rp) join and pull the data from the source and then > flood it into the Dm domain. > > Does this mean that PIM-SSM and PIM-DM will never work together? > To me it looks like, it may be a valid case in deployment. As Maneesh said by > configuring IGMP static join at R2 will make it work. But it needs user > intervention. > > Maneesh, in other scenarios, as u said, it would work. > > Thanks, > Manish > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rajamanickam jaganbabu [mailto:jaganbabu_pim@yahoo.co.in] > Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 10:39 PM > To: Manish Kumar; pim@catarina.usc.edu > Subject: Re: [pim] IGMPv3 - PIM-Dm and SSM Issue? > > > Hi Manish, > Yes you are right, in your case the packet will be droped at R3 itself. > This is not only in the case of SSM joins grenerated from the PC, it will > happen even PC sends IGMP (*,G) joins. Mulitcast packet will never reach from > R3 to R1 according to your topology. > If the receiver is on the other side of your topology (i.e PC connected to > R3 and if the source is connected to R1) then there is possible of PC > receiving the packets from the "source". > > Thanx, > Jags > > Manish Kumar wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to know how a IGMP-v3 receiver lying on a PIM-DM domain receives > data packet from source lying in a PIM-SSM domain? > > PC-----dm------R1 ----dm-----R2-----sm----R3-----sm---Source > (igmp-v3 join) > > R2 is connected on one side with SM router and other side with Dm router. > > R2 and R3 supports PIM-SSM, no RPs. > > In PIM-DM, how can igmpv3 join be propagated towards the source? > How does interdomain multicast work with PIM-SSM and PIM-DM? > > Am I missing something or above scenario is never possible? > > Let me know. > > Thanks in advance, > Manish > > > > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@catarina.usc.edu > http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim > > SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger; Download latest version. > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@catarina.usc.edu > http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim > > > SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger;Download latest version. _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim *************************************************************************** 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-bounces@catarina.usc.edu Wed Jul 23 17:49:36 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 RAA04243 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:49:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6NLkdt7027654; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:46:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from exch-srv.CoronaNetworks.com ([205.219.34.104]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6NLkat6027649 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:46:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from manish@coronanetworks.com) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Subject: RE: [pim] IGMPv3 - PIM-Dm and SSM Issue? Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:43:21 -0700 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [pim] IGMPv3 - PIM-Dm and SSM Issue? Thread-Index: AcNRLj4WIA2Y54L0Q6ehR4LUsq5bggANWhRg From: "Manish Kumar" To: , "Marshall Eubanks" , "Rajamanickam jaganbabu" , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by catarina.usc.edu id h6NLkat6027651 X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: The IETF PIM working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Let me rephrase the question: How does the border router R1 flood the packet toward DM interface(1) coming from PIM-SM interface assuming source starts sending and sm domain is configured for PIM-SSM? R2 has null oifs. ----1---dm----R1-------2---sm-----R2-----sm-----src Thanks, Manish -----Original Message----- From: Prashant Jhingran [mailto:prashantj@future.futsoft.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 8:16 AM To: 'Marshall Eubanks'; 'Rajamanickam jaganbabu'; Manish Kumar; pim@catarina.usc.edu Subject: RE: [pim] IGMPv3 - PIM-Dm and SSM Issue? Well Quite true Marshall, DM is a flood & prune oriented protocol whereas SM is receiver oriented. Therefore the following doubt looks a bit confusing:- "> In PIM-DM, how can igmpv3 join be propagated towards the source?" In DM, I think we always prune the source (in case if we don't want the traffic)coz once source comes up, it automatically starts flooding the network. Regarding the BR behavior actually speaking the multicast Interop RFC lacks in clarifying some issues & I think they have been discussed at length on the mailing list and they really require clarifications. Once clarified, we won't have such doubts. regards, Prashant -----Original Message----- From: pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu [mailto:pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu]On Behalf Of Marshall Eubanks Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 6:54 PM To: Rajamanickam jaganbabu; Manish Kumar; pim@catarina.usc.edu Subject: Re: [pim] IGMPv3 - PIM-Dm and SSM Issue? On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 07:32:29 +0100 (BST) Rajamanickam jaganbabu wrote: > Hi Manish, > I think at present there is no mechanism to propogate Source specific > joins to the Border router which just supports PIM DM on one interface and > PIM-SSM on the other interface. > Actually your are talking about very small network, where you said you can > do user intervention to push the packet to the other domain, but this is not > a permenant solution, I think if we enhance DWR draft to support to propogate > SSM specific informations to the border router, then it is possible to have > the scenario which you have mentioned (this is just a sugession, if iam > wrong please correct me). I am confused here - all inter-domain joins at present are (S,G) and, of course, the first hop router turns IGMP membership requests into PIM joins. So if there is a border router between a PIM SM and a PIM DM domain, why does it matter that the joins are SSM or not ? How does the BR even know this ? Or is the trouble that this is not really two domains ? Regards Marshall Eubanks > > Note: > This should be done only for SSM group. > > > Thanx, > Jags > > > Manish Kumar wrote: > Thanks Jags and Maneesh, > > The reason I asked about receiver generating igmp v3 (S,G) join is because of > the fact that source is lying on the PIM-SSM domain. I was just trying to > find out whether there is any mechanism by which S,G join is propagated to > the border router. > > If the other domain is PIM-SM, then it is possible to receive data as border > router will send (*,*,Rp) join and pull the data from the source and then > flood it into the Dm domain. > > Does this mean that PIM-SSM and PIM-DM will never work together? > To me it looks like, it may be a valid case in deployment. As Maneesh said by > configuring IGMP static join at R2 will make it work. But it needs user > intervention. > > Maneesh, in other scenarios, as u said, it would work. > > Thanks, > Manish > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rajamanickam jaganbabu [mailto:jaganbabu_pim@yahoo.co.in] > Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 10:39 PM > To: Manish Kumar; pim@catarina.usc.edu > Subject: Re: [pim] IGMPv3 - PIM-Dm and SSM Issue? > > > Hi Manish, > Yes you are right, in your case the packet will be droped at R3 itself. > This is not only in the case of SSM joins grenerated from the PC, it will > happen even PC sends IGMP (*,G) joins. Mulitcast packet will never reach from > R3 to R1 according to your topology. > If the receiver is on the other side of your topology (i.e PC connected to > R3 and if the source is connected to R1) then there is possible of PC > receiving the packets from the "source". > > Thanx, > Jags > > Manish Kumar wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to know how a IGMP-v3 receiver lying on a PIM-DM domain receives > data packet from source lying in a PIM-SSM domain? > > PC-----dm------R1 ----dm-----R2-----sm----R3-----sm---Source > (igmp-v3 join) > > R2 is connected on one side with SM router and other side with Dm router. > > R2 and R3 supports PIM-SSM, no RPs. > > In PIM-DM, how can igmpv3 join be propagated towards the source? > How does interdomain multicast work with PIM-SSM and PIM-DM? > > Am I missing something or above scenario is never possible? > > Let me know. > > Thanks in advance, > Manish > > > > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@catarina.usc.edu > http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim > > SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger; Download latest version. > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@catarina.usc.edu > http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim > > > SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger;Download latest version. _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim *************************************************************************** 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-bounces@catarina.usc.edu Thu Jul 24 02:02:55 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 CAA16804 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 02:02:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6O5xTt7035341; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 22:59:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from web8203.mail.in.yahoo.com (web8203.mail.in.yahoo.com [203.199.70.117]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id h6O5xPt6035332 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 22:59:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jaganbabu_pim@yahoo.co.in) Message-ID: <20030724055919.57909.qmail@web8203.mail.in.yahoo.com> Received: from [203.126.136.170] by web8203.mail.in.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 06:59:19 BST Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 06:59:19 +0100 (BST) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Rajamanickam=20jaganbabu?= Subject: Re: [pim] IGMPv3 - PIM-Dm and SSM Issue? To: Marshall Eubanks , Manish Kumar , pim@catarina.usc.edu In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: The IETF PIM working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============63000154117702412==" Sender: pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu --===============63000154117702412== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-756872391-1059026359=:57026" --0-756872391-1059026359=:57026 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Marshall, I think you are little bit confused about the topology. If BR has PIM-DM and a pure PIM-SSM interfaces, then as per the topology Manish has refered, it is clearly seen that there is no way to forward the packet from PIM-SSM to DM domain (without user intervension), here since the IGMP recevier is one hop ahead from the DR, he can't hear IGMP V3 (S,G) joins directly as PIM-DM does not send joins whenever the IGMP group membership reports are received, so somebody has to inform the border router about his source specific joins to the border router else there won't be any entry in the BR for the (S,G) route, so the one way is through DWR, that is why is suggested to have source specific report towards the DR (which is not supported in the present DWR and 2715RFC). I hope this would clarrify you. Thanx, Jags Marshall Eubanks wrote: On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 07:32:29 +0100 (BST) Rajamanickam jaganbabu wrote: > Hi Manish, > I think at present there is no mechanism to propogate Source specific > joins to the Border router which just supports PIM DM on one interface and > PIM-SSM on the other interface. > Actually your are talking about very small network, where you said you can > do user intervention to push the packet to the other domain, but this is not > a permenant solution, I think if we enhance DWR draft to support to propogate > SSM specific informations to the border router, then it is possible to have > the scenario which you have mentioned (this is just a sugession, if iam > wrong please correct me). I am confused here - all inter-domain joins at present are (S,G) and, of course, the first hop router turns IGMP membership requests into PIM joins. So if there is a border router between a PIM SM and a PIM DM domain, why does it matter that the joins are SSM or not ? How does the BR even know this ? Or is the trouble that this is not really two domains ? Regards Marshall Eubanks > > Note: > This should be done only for SSM group. > > > Thanx, > Jags > > > Manish Kumar wrote: > Thanks Jags and Maneesh, > > The reason I asked about receiver generating igmp v3 (S,G) join is because of > the fact that source is lying on the PIM-SSM domain. I was just trying to > find out whether there is any mechanism by which S,G join is propagated to > the border router. > > If the other domain is PIM-SM, then it is possible to receive data as border > router will send (*,*,Rp) join and pull the data from the source and then > flood it into the Dm domain. > > Does this mean that PIM-SSM and PIM-DM will never work together? > To me it looks like, it may be a valid case in deployment. As Maneesh said by > configuring IGMP static join at R2 will make it work. But it needs user > intervention. > > Maneesh, in other scenarios, as u said, it would work. > > Thanks, > Manish > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rajamanickam jaganbabu [mailto:jaganbabu_pim@yahoo.co.in] > Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 10:39 PM > To: Manish Kumar; pim@catarina.usc.edu > Subject: Re: [pim] IGMPv3 - PIM-Dm and SSM Issue? > > > Hi Manish, > Yes you are right, in your case the packet will be droped at R3 itself. > This is not only in the case of SSM joins grenerated from the PC, it will > happen even PC sends IGMP (*,G) joins. Mulitcast packet will never reach from > R3 to R1 according to your topology. > If the receiver is on the other side of your topology (i.e PC connected to > R3 and if the source is connected to R1) then there is possible of PC > receiving the packets from the "source". > > Thanx, > Jags > > Manish Kumar wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to know how a IGMP-v3 receiver lying on a PIM-DM domain receives > data packet from source lying in a PIM-SSM domain? > > PC-----dm------R1 ----dm-----R2-----sm----R3-----sm---Source > (igmp-v3 join) > > R2 is connected on one side with SM router and other side with Dm router. > > R2 and R3 supports PIM-SSM, no RPs. > > In PIM-DM, how can igmpv3 join be propagated towards the source? > How does interdomain multicast work with PIM-SSM and PIM-DM? > > Am I missing something or above scenario is never possible? > > Let me know. > > Thanks in advance, > Manish > > > > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@catarina.usc.edu > http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim > > SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger; Download latest version. > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@catarina.usc.edu > http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim > > > SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger;Download latest version. _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger;Download latest version. --0-756872391-1059026359=:57026 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi Marshall,
  I think you are little bit confused about the topology. If BR has PIM-DM and a pure PIM-SSM interfaces, then as per the topology Manish has refered, it is clearly seen that there is no way to forward the packet from PIM-SSM  to DM domain (without user intervension), here since the IGMP recevier is one hop ahead from the DR, he can't hear IGMP V3 (S,G) joins directly as PIM-DM does not send joins whenever the IGMP group membership reports are received, so somebody has to inform the border router about his source specific joins to the border router else there won't be any entry in the BR for the (S,G) route, so the one way is through DWR, that is why is suggested to have source specific report towards the DR (which is not supported in the present DWR and 2715RFC).
   I hope this would clarrify you.
Thanx,
Jags

Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 07:32:29 +0100 (BST)
Rajamanickam jaganbabu wrote:
> Hi Manish,
> I think at present there is no mechanism to propogate Source specific
> joins to the Border router which just supports PIM DM on one interface and
> PIM-SSM on the other interface.
> Actually your are talking about very small network, where you said you can
> do user intervention to push the packet to the other domain, but this is not
> a permenant solution, I think if we enhance DWR draft to support to propogate
> SSM specific informations to the border router, then it is possible to have
> the scenario which you have mentioned (this is just a sugession, if iam
> wrong please correct me).

I am confused here - all inter-domain joins at present are (S,G) and, of
course, the first hop router tu! rns IGMP membership requests into PIM
joins. So if there is a border router between a PIM SM and a PIM DM domain,
why does it matter that the joins are SSM or not ? How does the BR even know
this ? Or is the trouble that
this is not really two domains ?

Regards
Marshall Eubanks


>
> Note:
> This should be done only for SSM group.
>
>
> Thanx,
> Jags
>
>
> Manish Kumar wrote:
> Thanks Jags and Maneesh,
>
> The reason I asked about receiver generating igmp v3 (S,G) join is because of
> the fact that source is lying on the PIM-SSM domain. I was just trying to
> find out whether there is any mechanism by which S,G join is propagated to
> the border router.
>
> If the other domain is PIM-SM, then it is possible to receive data as border
> router will send (*,*,Rp) join and pull the data from the source and then> flood it into the Dm domain.
>
> Does this mean that PIM-SSM and PIM-DM will never work together?
> To me it looks like, it may be a valid case in deployment. As Maneesh said by
> configuring IGMP static join at R2 will make it work. But it needs user
> intervention.
>
> Maneesh, in other scenarios, as u said, it would work.
>
> Thanks,
> Manish
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rajamanickam jaganbabu [mailto:jaganbabu_pim@yahoo.co.in]
> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 10:39 PM
> To: Manish Kumar; pim@catarina.usc.edu
> Subject: Re: [pim] IGMPv3 - PIM-Dm and SSM Issue?
>
>
> Hi Manish,
> Yes you are right, in your case the packet will be droped at R3 itself.
> This is not only in the case of SSM joins grenerated from the PC, it will
> happen even PC sends IGMP (*,G) joins. Mulitcast packet will never reach from
> R3 to R1 ! according to your topology.
> If the receiver is on the other side of your topology (i.e PC connected to
> R3 and if the source is connected to R1) then there is possible of PC
> receiving the packets from the "source".
>
> Thanx,
> Jags
>
> Manish Kumar wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to know how a IGMP-v3 receiver lying on a PIM-DM domain receives
> data packet from source lying in a PIM-SSM domain?
>
> PC-----dm------R1 ----dm-----R2-----sm----R3-----sm---Source
> (igmp-v3 join)
>
> R2 is connected on one side with SM router and other side with Dm router.
>
> R2 and R3 supports PIM-SSM, no RPs.
>
> In PIM-DM, how can igmpv3 join be propagated towards the source?
> How does interdomain multicast work with PIM-SSM and PIM-DM?
>
> Am I missing something or above scenario is never possible?
>
> Le! t me know.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Manish
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim@catarina.usc.edu
> http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim
>
> SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger; Download latest version.
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim@catarina.usc.edu
> http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim
>
>
> SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger;Download latest version.

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

Yahoo! India Mobile SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger; Download latest version. --0-756872391-1059026359=:57026-- --===============63000154117702412== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim --===============63000154117702412==-- From pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu Thu Jul 24 03:27:01 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 DAA27256 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 03:27:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6O7Nit7036679; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 00:23:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from web8205.mail.in.yahoo.com (web8205.mail.in.yahoo.com [203.199.70.126]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id h6O7Net6036674 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 00:23:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jaganbabu_pim@yahoo.co.in) Message-ID: <20030724072334.4312.qmail@web8205.mail.in.yahoo.com> Received: from [203.126.136.170] by web8205.mail.in.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 08:23:34 BST Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 08:23:34 +0100 (BST) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Rajamanickam=20jaganbabu?= Subject: Re: [pim] IGMPv3 - PIM-Dm and SSM Issue? To: Rajamanickam jaganbabu , Marshall Eubanks , Manish Kumar , pim@catarina.usc.edu In-Reply-To: <20030724055919.57909.qmail@web8203.mail.in.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: The IETF PIM working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============35518442233119041==" Sender: pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu --===============35518442233119041== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1853210624-1059031414=:89502" --0-1853210624-1059031414=:89502 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, Please ignore my previous mail, it has Typo mistakes. The actual mail content is found below I think you are little bit confused about the topology. If BR has PIM-DM and a pure PIM-SSM interfaces, then as per the topology Manish has refered, it is clearly seen that there is no way to forward the packet from PIM-SSM to DM domain (without user intervension), here since the IGMP recevier is one hop ahead from the BR, he can't hear IGMP V3 (S,G) joins directly as PIM-DM does not send joins whenever the IGMP group membership reports are received, so somebody has to inform the border router about his source specific joins to the border router else there won't be any entry in the BR for the (S,G) route, so the one way is through DWR, that is why is suggested to have source specific report towards the BR (which is not supported in the present DWR and 2715RFC). I hope this would clarrify you. Thanx, Jags Rajamanickam jaganbabu wrote:Hi Marshall, I think you are little bit confused about the topology. If BR has PIM-DM and a pure PIM-SSM interfaces, then as per the topology Manish has refered, it is clearly seen that there is no way to forward the packet from PIM-SSM to DM domain (without user intervension), here since the IGMP recevier is one hop ahead from the DR, he can't hear IGMP V3 (S,G) joins directly as PIM-DM does not send joins whenever the IGMP group membership reports are received, so somebody has to inform the border router about his source specific joins to the border router else there won't be any entry in the BR for the (S,G) route, so the one way is through DWR, that is why is suggested to have source specific report towards the DR (which is not supported in the present DWR and 2715RFC). I hope this would clarrify you. Thanx, Jags Marshall Eubanks wrote: On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 07:32:29 +0100 (BST) Rajamanickam jaganbabu wrote: > Hi Manish, > I think at present there is no mechanism to propogate Source specific > joins to the Border router which just supports PIM DM on one interface and > PIM-SSM on the other interface. > Actually your are talking about very small network, where you said you can > do user intervention to push the packet to the other domain, but this is not > a permenant solution, I think if we enhance DWR draft to support to propogate > SSM specific informations to the border router, then it is possible to have > the scenario which you have mentioned (this is just a sugession, if iam > wrong please correct me). I am confused here - all inter-domain joins at present are (S,G) and, of course, the first hop router tu! rns IGMP membership requests into PIM joins. So if there is a border router between a PIM SM and a PIM DM domain, why does it matter that the joins are SSM or not ? How does the BR even know this ? Or is the trouble that this is not really two domains ? Regards Marshall Eubanks > > Note: > This should be done only for SSM group. > > > Thanx, > Jags > > > Manish Kumar wrote: > Thanks Jags and Maneesh, > > The reason I asked about receiver generating igmp v3 (S,G) join is because of > the fact that source is lying on the PIM-SSM domain. I was just trying to > find out whether there is any mechanism by which S,G join is propagated to > the border router. > > If the other domain is PIM-SM, then it is possible to receive data as border > router will send (*,*,Rp) join and pull the data from the source and then > flood it into the Dm domain. > > Does this mean that PIM-SSM and PIM-DM will never work together? > To me it looks like, it may be a valid case in deployment. As Maneesh said by > configuring IGMP static join at R2 will make it work. But it needs user > intervention. > > Maneesh, in other scenarios, as u said, it would work. > > Thanks, > Manish > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rajamanickam jaganbabu [mailto:jaganbabu_pim@yahoo.co.in] > Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 10:39 PM > To: Manish Kumar; pim@catarina.usc.edu > Subject: Re: [pim] IGMPv3 - PIM-Dm and SSM Issue? > > > Hi Manish, > Yes you are right, in your case the packet will be droped at R3 itself. > This is not only in the case of SSM joins grenerated from the PC, it will > happen even PC sends IGMP (*,G) joins. Mulitcast packet will never reach from > R3 to R1 ! according to your topology. > If the receiver is on the other side of your topology (i.e PC connected to > R3 and if the source is connected to R1) then there is possible of PC > receiving the packets from the "source". > > Thanx, > Jags > > Manish Kumar wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to know how a IGMP-v3 receiver lying on a PIM-DM domain receives > data packet from source lying in a PIM-SSM domain? > > PC-----dm------R1 ----dm-----R2-----sm----R3-----sm---Source > (igmp-v3 join) > > R2 is connected on one side with SM router and other side with Dm router. > > R2 and R3 supports PIM-SSM, no RPs. > > In PIM-DM, how can igmpv3 join be propagated towards the source? > How does interdomain multicast work with PIM-SSM and PIM-DM? > > Am I missing something or above scenario is never possible? > > Le! t me know. > > Thanks in advance, > Manish > > > > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@catarina.usc.edu > http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim > > SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger; Download latest version. > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@catarina.usc.edu > http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim > > > SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger;Download latest version. _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger; Download latest version._______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger;Download latest version. --0-1853210624-1059031414=:89502 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi,
   Please ignore my previous mail, it has Typo mistakes. The actual mail content is found below
 
   I think you are little bit confused about the topology. If BR has PIM-DM and a pure PIM-SSM interfaces, then as per the topology Manish has refered, it is clearly seen that there is no way to forward the packet from PIM-SSM  to DM domain (without user intervension), here since the IGMP recevier is one hop ahead from the BR, he can't hear IGMP V3 (S,G) joins directly as PIM-DM does not send joins whenever the IGMP group membership reports are received, so somebody has to inform the border router about his source specific joins to the border router else there won't be any entry in the BR for the (S,G) route, so the one way is through DWR, that is why is suggested to have source specific report towards the BR (which is not supported in the present DWR and 2715RFC).
   I hope this would clarrify you.
Thanx,
Jags


Rajamanickam jaganbabu <jaganbabu_pim@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Hi Marshall,
  I think you are little bit confused about the topology. If BR has PIM-DM and a pure PIM-SSM interfaces, then as per the topology Manish has refered, it is clearly seen that there is no way to forward the packet from PIM-SSM  to DM domain (without user intervension), here since the IGMP recevier is one hop ahead from the DR, he can't hear IGMP V3 (S,G) joins directly as PIM-DM does not send joins whenever the IGMP group membership reports are received, so somebody has to inform the border router about his source specific joins to the border router else there won't be any entry in the BR for the (S,G) route, so the one way is through DWR, that is why is suggested to have source specific report towards the DR (which is not supported in the present DWR and 2715RFC).
   I hope this would clarrify you.
Thanx,
Jags

Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 07:32:29 +0100 (BST)
Rajamanickam jaganbabu wrote:
> Hi Manish,
> I think at present there is no mechanism to propogate Source specific
> joins to the Border router which just supports PIM DM on one interface and
> PIM-SSM on the other interface.
> Actually your are talking about very small network, where you said you can
> do user intervention to push the packet to the other domain, but this is not
> a permenant solution, I think if we enhance DWR draft to support to propogate
> SSM specific informations to the border router, then it is possible to have
> the scenario which you have mentioned (this is just a sugession, if iam
> wrong please correct me).

I am confused here - all inter-domain joins at present are (S,G) and, of
course, the first hop router tu! ! rns IGMP membership requests into PIM
joins. So if there is a border router between a PIM SM and a PIM DM domain,
why does it matter that the joins are SSM or not ? How does the BR even know
this ? Or is the trouble that
this is not really two domains ?

Regards
Marshall Eubanks


>
> Note:
> This should be done only for SSM group.
>
>
> Thanx,
> Jags
>
>
> Manish Kumar wrote:
> Thanks Jags and Maneesh,
>
> The reason I asked about receiver generating igmp v3 (S,G) join is because of
> the fact that source is lying on the PIM-SSM domain. I was just trying to
> find out whether there is any mechanism by which S,G join is propagated to
> the border router.
>
> If the other domain is PIM-SM, then it is possible to receive data as border
> router will send (*,*,Rp) join and pull the data from the source and then> flood it into the Dm domain.
>
> Does this mean that PIM-SSM and PIM-DM will never work together?
> To me it looks like, it may be a valid case in deployment. As Maneesh said by
> configuring IGMP static join at R2 will make it work. But it needs user
> intervention.
>
> Maneesh, in other scenarios, as u said, it would work.
>
> Thanks,
> Manish
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rajamanickam jaganbabu [mailto:jaganbabu_pim@yahoo.co.in]
> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 10:39 PM
> To: Manish Kumar; pim@catarina.usc.edu
> Subject: Re: [pim] IGMPv3 - PIM-Dm and SSM Issue?
>
>
> Hi Manish,
> Yes you are right, in your case the packet will be droped at R3 itself.
> This is not only in the case of SSM joins grenerated from the PC, it will
> happen even PC sends IGMP (*,G) joins. Mulitcast packet will never reach from
! > R3 to R1 ! according to your topology.
> If the receiver is on the other side of your topology (i.e PC connected to
> R3 and if the source is connected to R1) then there is possible of PC
> receiving the packets from the "source".
>
> Thanx,
> Jags
>
> Manish Kumar wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to know how a IGMP-v3 receiver lying on a PIM-DM domain receives
> data packet from source lying in a PIM-SSM domain?
>
> PC-----dm------R1 ----dm-----R2-----sm----R3-----sm---Source
> (igmp-v3 join)
>
> R2 is connected on one side with SM router and other side with Dm router.
>
> R2 and R3 supports PIM-SSM, no RPs.
>
> In PIM-DM, how can igmpv3 join be propagated towards the source?
> How does interdomain multicast work with PIM-SSM and PIM-DM?
>
> Am I missing something or above scenario is never possible?>
> Le! t me know.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Manish
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim@catarina.usc.edu
> http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim
>
> SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger; Download latest version.
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim@catarina.usc.edu
> http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim
>
>
> SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger;Download latest version.

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

Yahoo! India Mobile SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger; Download latest version._______________________________________________
pim mailing list
pim@catarina.usc.edu
http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim

Yahoo! India Mobile SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger; Download latest version. --0-1853210624-1059031414=:89502-- --===============35518442233119041== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim --===============35518442233119041==-- From pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu Thu Jul 24 12:24:26 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 MAA12535 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:24:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6OGIGt7043880; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 09:21:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from multicasttech.com (IDENT:root@lennon.multicasttech.com [63.105.122.7]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6OGIDt6043876 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 09:18:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marshall_eubanks@multicasttech.com) Received: from [160.39.246.225] (account ) by multicasttech.com (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 3.4.8) with HTTP id 1717300; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:18:03 -0400 From: "Marshall Eubanks" Subject: Re: [pim] IGMPv3 - PIM-Dm and SSM Issue? To: Rajamanickam jaganbabu , Marshall Eubanks , Manish Kumar , pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro Web Mailer v.3.4.8 Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:18:03 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20030724055919.57909.qmail@web8203.mail.in.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: The IETF PIM working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 06:59:19 +0100 (BST) Rajamanickam jaganbabu wrote: > Hi Marshall, OK, I see the problem now, and I see no solution in the various RFC's. One possible solution would be to treat the Dense Mode network (which could be DVMRP also) as a "stub network" ( as in http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/105/48.html#stub ) for SSM - then SSM (S,G) joins would be passed upstream to the border router which would act as an IGMP proxy and then could join and flood the resulting SSM data into the dense mode cloud. Sounds like some drafts need to be updated. Regards Marshall Eubanks > I think you are little bit confused about the topology. If BR has PIM-DM > and a pure PIM-SSM interfaces, then as per the topology Manish has refered, > it is clearly seen that there is no way to forward the packet from PIM-SSM > to DM domain (without user intervension), here since the IGMP recevier is one > hop ahead from the DR, he can't hear IGMP V3 (S,G) joins directly as PIM-DM > does not send joins whenever the IGMP group membership reports are received, > so somebody has to inform the border router about his source specific joins > to the border router else there won't be any entry in the BR for the (S,G) > route, so the one way is through DWR, that is why is suggested to have source > specific report towards the DR (which is not supported in the present DWR and > 2715RFC). > I hope this would clarrify you. > Thanx, > Jags > > Marshall Eubanks wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 07:32:29 +0100 (BST) > Rajamanickam jaganbabu wrote: > > Hi Manish, > > I think at present there is no mechanism to propogate Source specific > > joins to the Border router which just supports PIM DM on one interface and > > PIM-SSM on the other interface. > > Actually your are talking about very small network, where you said you can > > do user intervention to push the packet to the other domain, but this is > not > > a permenant solution, I think if we enhance DWR draft to support to > propogate > > SSM specific informations to the border router, then it is possible to have > > the scenario which you have mentioned (this is just a sugession, if iam > > wrong please correct me). > > I am confused here - all inter-domain joins at present are (S,G) and, of > course, the first hop router turns IGMP membership requests into PIM > joins. So if there is a border router between a PIM SM and a PIM DM domain, > why does it matter that the joins are SSM or not ? How does the BR even know > this ? Or is the trouble that > this is not really two domains ? > > Regards > Marshall Eubanks > > > > > > Note: > > This should be done only for SSM group. > > > > > > Thanx, > > Jags > > > > > > Manish Kumar wrote: > > Thanks Jags and Maneesh, > > > > The reason I asked about receiver generating igmp v3 (S,G) join is because > of > > the fact that source is lying on the PIM-SSM domain. I was just trying to > > find out whether there is any mechanism by which S,G join is propagated to > > the border router. > > > > If the other domain is PIM-SM, then it is possible to receive data as > border > > router will send (*,*,Rp) join and pull the data from the source and then > > flood it into the Dm domain. > > > > Does this mean that PIM-SSM and PIM-DM will never work together? > > To me it looks like, it may be a valid case in deployment. As Maneesh said > by > > configuring IGMP static join at R2 will make it work. But it needs user > > intervention. > > > > Maneesh, in other scenarios, as u said, it would work. > > > > Thanks, > > Manish > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Rajamanickam jaganbabu [mailto:jaganbabu_pim@yahoo.co.in] > > Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 10:39 PM > > To: Manish Kumar; pim@catarina.usc.edu > > Subject: Re: [pim] IGMPv3 - PIM-Dm and SSM Issue? > > > > > > Hi Manish, > > Yes you are right, in your case the packet will be droped at R3 itself. > > This is not only in the case of SSM joins grenerated from the PC, it will > > happen even PC sends IGMP (*,G) joins. Mulitcast packet will never reach > from > > R3 to R1 according to your topology. > > If the receiver is on the other side of your topology (i.e PC connected to > > R3 and if the source is connected to R1) then there is possible of PC > > receiving the packets from the "source". > > > > Thanx, > > Jags > > > > Manish Kumar wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I would like to know how a IGMP-v3 receiver lying on a PIM-DM domain > receives > > data packet from source lying in a PIM-SSM domain? > > > > PC-----dm------R1 ----dm-----R2-----sm----R3-----sm---Source > > (igmp-v3 join) > > > > R2 is connected on one side with SM router and other side with Dm router. > > > > R2 and R3 supports PIM-SSM, no RPs. > > > > In PIM-DM, how can igmpv3 join be propagated towards the source? > > How does interdomain multicast work with PIM-SSM and PIM-DM? > > > > Am I missing something or above scenario is never possible? > > > > Let me know. > > > > Thanks in advance, > > Manish > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > pim mailing list > > pim@catarina.usc.edu > > http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim > > > > SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger; Download latest version. > > _______________________________________________ > > pim mailing list > > pim@catarina.usc.edu > > http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim > > > > > > SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger;Download latest version. > > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@catarina.usc.edu > http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim > > SMS using the Yahoo! Messenger;Download latest version. _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim From pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu Fri Jul 25 01:17:02 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 BAA12071 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 01:17:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from catarina.usc.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6P5DHt7053812; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 22:13:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu) Received: from dmz1.procket.com (dmz1.procket.com [65.174.124.36]) by catarina.usc.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6P5DEt6053808 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 22:13:14 -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 28DF623C3C; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 22:14:14 -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 h6P5D8YB021910; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 22:13:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from procket.com ([10.1.1.1]) by exchangefe2.na.procket.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Thu, 24 Jul 2003 22:13:07 -0700 Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 22:13:23 -0700 Subject: Re: [pim] IGMPv3 - PIM-Dm and SSM Issue? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) To: "Manish Kumar" From: John Zwiebel In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jul 2003 05:13:08.0019 (UTC) FILETIME=[6F623030:01C3526B] cc: pim@catarina.usc.edu cc: Marshall Eubanks cc: Rajamanickam jaganbabu cc: John Zwiebel cc: prashantj@future.futsoft.com X-BeenThere: pim@catarina.usc.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: The IETF PIM working group mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu Errors-To: pim-bounces@catarina.usc.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wednesday, July 23, 2003, at 02:43 PM, Manish Kumar wrote: > Let me rephrase the question: > > How does the border router R1 flood the packet toward DM interface(1) > coming from PIM-SM interface assuming source starts sending and sm > domain is configured for PIM-SSM? R2 has null oifs. > > ----1---dm----R1-------2---sm-----R2-----sm-----src > > Thanks, > Manish > > Let me provide a simple answer: don't do this. If you want to join SSM interdomain groups, enable PIM-SM. After 10 years, the need for Dense mode seems to have evaporated. I'm not saying that DM isn't a viable forwarding option, I'm only saying that in practice the amount of effort required to get sparse-mode groups distributed throughout a dense-mode domain is not worth the effort, confusion, configuration problems, etc. This thread discussed Domain-wide reports and Border routers which require additional protocol functionality and interoperability that, frankly, hasn't been established in most vendors implementations. This discussion makes me think that we are going to start discussing BGMP again. All this stuff is complicated and completely unnecessary. We need to concentrate on getting multicast deployed in its simplest form before we worry about setting up interoperations that have never proven to be required. Now, I could be wrong. I would like to hear of a commercial entity that requires the functionality being discussed here. IMHO any entity that is depending on DVMRP will have to move to PIM-SM first before it could reliably receive SSM content. z _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@catarina.usc.edu http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim