From mmcbride7@gmail.com Fri Jul 13 15:20:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AFF211E80F2 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:20:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SOme5h1eKmhM for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:20:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gg0-f172.google.com (mail-gg0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D04111E80EC for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:20:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ggnc4 with SMTP id c4so4455198ggn.31 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:20:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=m4EBD1ipKEGSsJpVzarE+ilvsWWZTAa8p3VJPj0dGuQ=; b=QGNwXhlsy624iG975Lxys+DeX7mWf+cIEwrKrDhNLsriG3TCHRwL4/zKlMoV1M01lP p/fMCtP/cIGiYZiZ40sXV96ICQPkX/sfNUadVD0SrxMbBHpjcaAEtgKK3eWIjR4I2bCz HrZeFveni+o9Q0ql3gUTdv1X+OwUpO2XjCESG84Kj36dn9AyYtMUn+ukFGi2KfhBSyl+ zxxQFrwrvZ5vTAjUVZl6IoFNY+0LJrtblN8cj+q6tqP/ir7Jz3bMKx4vQGZZokouVGSQ ar5zGVJouZbVK6074B+5q14mY+ClBj4g3Xel9GH2pOPli3wzAzjwwzhuEwrv+GBiD/Qd Eg4A== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.68.65 with SMTP id w1mr1804851ici.57.1342218040061; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:20:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.63.13 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:20:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:20:39 -0700 Message-ID: From: Mike McBride To: pim@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [pim] agenda for Vancouver X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:20:05 -0000 We will have an hour in Vancouver for our meeting. Please send agenda items to Stig and I. We are currently scheduled for 1030 on Tuesday the 31st. There are some conflicts during that time (rmt, nvo3, 6renum) so we are trying to get our slot changed. thanks, mike From tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com Fri Jul 13 20:19:41 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8082411E808C for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 20:19:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QcKgJR7WGeCV for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 20:19:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-we0-f172.google.com (mail-we0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3148411E8088 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 20:19:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by weyu54 with SMTP id u54so2772084wey.31 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 20:20:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :x-antivirus:x-antivirus-status; bh=vRVReUNvOk3d3G/ebic1v0+u0mHzb0hzA/QBh7+3w8o=; b=shu3TnCv0fMF9TNAWDNj/SuQA1HGd5WcGqggMo0e8DFiwv9pF9VoRIsKFmYLT+yTrE 22xMwuiE7cyV6i5r+Mkr0zB8DzD83ou3yGyqjhEOA9Pp/kOAaJnQOtfJqFf0zwDnlFL0 UknJWdRhgf2+uOB0GQBly8AIy02uKva/gUEQky7sfZ4BET9pzEao+QHg5t24QOdVGKCy 0BEIv+R3T8dROnMmAicMH/kERqD6C6Xk+JlVjTI+4rxUUhV2hi9sIFEncs2NPsSDIsVV txkZtKBBo0FehkZJyd6A36JTSj+XLHYKUsM9vUWa/384nBP0dgWgbBYpnab2gMxgwIW+ jw0w== Received: by 10.216.142.200 with SMTP id i50mr2087272wej.47.1342236017239; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 20:20:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([207.112.101.80]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y5sm6840876wiw.9.2012.07.13.20.20.15 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 13 Jul 2012 20:20:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5000E56E.9090002@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 23:20:14 -0400 From: Tom Taylor User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike McBride References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 120713-1, 13/07/2012), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Cc: pim@ietf.org Subject: Re: [pim] agenda for Vancouver X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 03:19:41 -0000 I'd like ten minutes for my PIM translation draft, which I will be updating this weekend. Tom Taylor On 13/07/2012 6:20 PM, Mike McBride wrote: > We will have an hour in Vancouver for our meeting. Please send agenda > items to Stig and I. > > We are currently scheduled for 1030 on Tuesday the 31st. There are > some conflicts during that time (rmt, nvo3, 6renum) so we are trying > to get our slot changed. > > thanks, > mike > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim > From ganeshreddyk@gmail.com Mon Jul 16 04:30:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 084A921F8767 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 04:30:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q53-Sor2FFin for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 04:30:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEB6821F86BE for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 04:30:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bkty7 with SMTP id y7so4112987bkt.31 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 04:30:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=SbUZazRBt2zWH6FtAnA8HkXX5ujP0lUssLE0X4uGpjQ=; b=npmgnwcd1P+U0XqBbT2IMXZ4sSR+5QdmCiCogA3vY1lHSyWbG+kWDXrNPP0g6FmXrs ZUv3azsawk7yXcJjdlbor5Z6V0wra8lfeuu7ndgs6r7wQ5uQyBmVxB8BSOL7JQa1wjrk O6Nx6eKVJeV+5MyOyEVLDFHGEMKVEeNXDRrQ5iG4C4C4EsWO24WbD+n0nbq+apTDtLLo em2dZ7QnjwUPRoFaLpqvkBl86qzOSUSaCDFixMRtkThNaHorimdKdXiT/o5q4BetPcXQ U2noUthh2EaADdAlPsDnIItZoxEYgk352V3/Ikd9tPmiAUG3oXVG5txMFeQ+7wLYOO9C XTTA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.205.134.133 with SMTP id ic5mr4830195bkc.15.1342438252041; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 04:30:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.179.205 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 04:30:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <82B681751FE46F4AB3FCA7390B780FD1051A6AE0@039-SN1MPN1-001.039d.mgd.msft.net> <54DD4F682C240845BF5F7D0EECBDB6F20839A4D4@EXDB3.ug.kth.se> <82B681751FE46F4AB3FCA7390B780FD1051AFFDE@039-SN1MPN1-002.039d.mgd.msft.net> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 17:00:51 +0530 Message-ID: From: Ganesh Reddy K To: xorp-users@xorp.org, pim@ietf.org, Ben Greear , Bv Rajesh-B35907 , keshavsrinu@gmail.com, Gandikota Syamasundar-B38867 , sridhar pothuganti , Reddy Ganesh-B38514 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [pim] [Xorp-users] Multicast traffic is not forwarded in a specific deployment as mentioned in the mail X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 11:30:15 -0000 Hi, I have tried adding alternate subnet configuration, Even now, the traffic is not forwarded. But this time, i saw that multicast route () is disappearing in kernel when Listener is on. Setup:------ H1 -------------- eth1 DEVICE eth0 -------------- H2 Sender listener. Observation1) Device status:-- tcpdump -ni eth1 device eth1 entered promiscuous mode tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode listening on eth1, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 68 bytes 03:14:07.573648 IP 192.168.11.54.46442 > 226.0.6.130.5000: UDP, length: 36 03:14:08.573617 IP 192.168.11.54.46442 > 226.0.6.130.5000: UDP, length: 36 .. . [root@P2020RDB igateway]# cat /proc/net/ip_mr_* Group Origin Iif Pkts Bytes Wrong Oifs Interface BytesIn PktsIn BytesOut PktsOut Flags Local Remote 0 eth0 0 0 0 0 00000 C0A80164 00000000 1 pimreg 0 0 0 0 00004 C0A80164 00000000 2 eth1 175296 2739 0 0 00000 C0A80264 00000000 .. . [root@P2020RDB igateway]# cat /proc/net/ip_mr_cache Group Origin Iif Pkts Bytes Wrong Oifs E2000682 C0A80B36 2 3 192 0 (After Alternate subnet configuration is done on eth1, this route is disappeared, when Listener is runnig on eth0 side of Device) After enabling DEBUG prints in source code, below messages looks to be problematic.:----- pim_mre_join_prune.c:-- "WARNING xorp_pimsm4 PIM JoinDesired (S,G) =3D false; upstream neighbor for source 192.168.11.54 and group 226.0.6.130: not found" Observation 2 ) I am going through xorp-notes RELEASE notes http://fossies.org/unix/misc/xorp-1.8.5-src.tar.gz:a/xorp/pim/TODO * PIM IMPL: 21 If the PIM-SM module doesn't know the RP address, then it shouldn't 22 include the register_vif in the MFC entry's outgoing interface set. My comment/DOUBT In the above traffic scenario, does the above statement confirms the xorp existing behavior . Observation 3) While going through source pim_mrt.cc, below function has the warning comment :-- saying order is important. i.e, does the traffic in above scenario follows search/creation order properly ? (S,G) (S,G,rpt) (*,G) (*,*,RP) How exactly order differentiates ..given below the source ? // XXX: @create_flags must be a subset of @lookup_flags // XXX: if no creation allowed, the entry that it returns may be the // next one in the map. // // XXX: if the entry to lookup and/or create is (*,*,RP), then: // - If group is IPvX::ZERO(family()), then we lookup/create the // entry by using 'source' which is the RP address // - If group is NOT IPvX::ZERO(family()), then we lookup/create the // entry by lookup first which is the RP for 'group'. // - Regardless of the group address, the created (*,*,RP) entry // always has a group address of IPvX::MULTICAST_BASE(family()) PimMre * PimMrt::pim_mre_find(const IPvX& source, const IPvX& group, uint32_t lookup_flags, uint32_t create_flags) { PimMre *pim_mre =3D NULL; create_flags &=3D lookup_flags; // // Try to lookup if entry was installed already. // XXX: the order is important, because we want the longest-match. // XLOG_INFO("%s(%d)-TEST: src =3D %s dst =3D %s, lookup_flags %X create_flags %X\r\n",__FUNCTION__, __LINE__, cstring(source), cstring(group),lookup_flags, create_flags); do { if (lookup_flags & PIM_MRE_SG) { // // (S,G) entry // pim_mre =3D _pim_mrt_sg.find(source, group); if (pim_mre !=3D NULL) break; } if (lookup_flags & PIM_MRE_SG_RPT) { // // (S,G,rpt) entry // pim_mre =3D _pim_mrt_sg_rpt.find(source, group); if (pim_mre !=3D NULL) break; } if (lookup_flags & PIM_MRE_WC) { // // (*,G) entry // pim_mre =3D _pim_mrt_g.find(IPvX::ZERO(family()), group); if (pim_mre !=3D NULL) break; } if (lookup_flags & PIM_MRE_RP) { // // (*,*,RP) entry // if (group =3D=3D IPvX::ZERO(family())) { // XXX: the entry is specified by the RP address ('source') pim_mre =3D _pim_mrt_rp.find(source, IPvX::MULTICAST_BASE(family())); if (pim_mre !=3D NULL) break; } else { // XXX: the entry is specified by the group address PimRp *pim_rp =3D pim_node()->rp_table().rp_find(group); if (pim_rp !=3D NULL) pim_mre =3D _pim_mrt_rp.find(pim_rp->rp_addr(), IPvX::MULTICAST_BASE(family(= ))); } if (pim_mre !=3D NULL) break; } } while (false); if (pim_mre !=3D NULL) return (pim_mre); // // Lookup failed. Create the entry if creation is allowed. // // If creation allowed, create the entry, insert it and return it. // XXX: the order is important, because we want the longest-match. do { if (create_flags & (PIM_MRE_SG)) { // // (S,G) entry // // Create and insert the entry if (create_flags & PIM_MRE_SG_RPT) { // // (S,G,rpt) entry // // Create and insert the entry ... .. } if (create_flags & PIM_MRE_WC) { // // (*,G) entry // // Create and insert the entry ... .. } if (create_flags & PIM_MRE_RP) { // // (*,*,RP) entry // // Create and insert the entry ... .. } .. . } On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Ganesh Reddy K w= rote: > I was going through xorp-source: > > xorp source filename: pim/pim_mfc.cc. A comment is added > about. is_directly_connected_s() . Any reason for doing this > check in couple of places ? If we bypass this check in all places, > any side affects ? > > void PimMfc::recompute_iif_olist_mfc() > { > > // > // Compute the new iif and the olist > // > // XXX: The computation is loosely based on the > // "On receipt of data from S to G on interface iif:" procedure. > // > // Note that the is_directly_connected_s() check is not in the > // spec, but for all practical purpose we want it here. > // > > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Reddy Ganesh-B38514 > wrote: >> I have configured "set protocols pimsm4 static-rps rp 192.168.4.2 group-= prefix 224.0.0.0/4" on the Device >> >> After this configuration, the Multicast route is properly added with Oif= as eth4 VIF index. But the still the traffic is not receiving at the mult= icast listener. In /proc/net/ip_mr_cache "Wrong" counter is incrementing= for each packet. >> >> By seeing the linux multicast routing code flow: net/ipv4/ipmr.c, it = is understood that, ip_mr_forward () is unsuccessful and returning with "= dont_forward" hence "wrong_if" counter is incremented. Seems packet dro= pped after routing. >> >> I did not understand this behavior after adding static-RP. Did I miss an= ything on this scenario/configuration ? >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dan Rosenqvist [mailto:danro@kth.se] >> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 10:31 PM >> To: Ganesh Reddy K; igorm@etf.rs; xorp-users@xorp.org >> Cc: Bv Rajesh-B35907; sridhar pothuganti; nandakishoreie14@gmail.com; Re= ddy Ganesh-B38514 >> Subject: SV: [Xorp-users] Multicast traffic is not forwarded in a specif= ic deployment as mentioned in the mail >> >> Hi, >> >> I think the problem you're experiencing is due to the lack of a rendez-v= ous point (RP). You can use either static RPs or use the bootstrap mechanis= m. For guidance, please have a look at the examples in www.xorp.org/config = (think there should be some examples for both static and bootstrap). >> >> Regards, >> Dan >> ________________________________________ >> Fr=C3=A5n: xorp-users-bounces@xorp.org [xorp-users-bounces@xorp.org] f&#= 246;r Ganesh Reddy K [ganeshreddyk@gmail.com] >> Skickat: den 6 juli 2012 07:03 >> Till: igorm@etf.rs; xorp-users@xorp.org >> Kopia: Bv Rajesh-B35907; sridhar pothuganti; nandakishoreie14@gmail.com;= Reddy Ganesh-B38514 >> =C3=84mne: Re: [Xorp-users] Multicast traffic is not forwarded in a spec= ific deployment as mentioned in the mail >> >> Tried this one also, but no progress on this. I hope there is >> something is happening, need to confirm either expected behavior of XOR= P/Linux or It is known Issue. I will check implementation details. >> >> Thanks in advance, >> >> Any quick suggestions welcome.. >> >> During this testcase, we are observing XORP statistics on the device a= re as followss =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >> show igmp group >> >> Interface Group Source LastReported Timeout V Stat= e >> eth0 224.0.0.2 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.100 157 3 = E >> eth0 224.0.0.13 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.100 157 3 = E >> eth0 224.0.0.22 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.100 157 3 = E >> eth0 224.0.0.251 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.50 160 3 = E >> eth0 239.11.11.11 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.50 160 3 = E >> eth1 224.0.0.2 0.0.0.0 192.168.2.100 155 3 = E >> eth1 224.0.0.13 0.0.0.0 192.168.2.100 155 3 = E >> eth1 224.0.0.22 0.0.0.0 192.168.2.100 155 3 = E >> eth2 224.0.0.2 0.0.0.0 192.168.3.100 158 3 = E >> eth2 224.0.0.13 0.0.0.0 192.168.3.100 158 3 = E >> eth2 224.0.0.22 0.0.0.0 192.168.3.100 158 3 = E >> eth3 224.0.0.2 0.0.0.0 192.168.4.100 161 3 = E >> eth3 224.0.0.13 0.0.0.0 192.168.4.100 161 3 = E >> eth3 224.0.0.22 0.0.0.0 192.168.4.100 161 3 = E >> >> show mfea dataflow >> >> Group Source >> 239.11.11.11 192.168.11.54 >> Measured(Start|Packets|Bytes) Type Thresh(Interval|Packets|Bytes) Rema= in >> 56253.252679|627|? <=3D 210.0|0|? = 170.767324 >> >> >> show mfea interface >> >> Interface State Vif/PifIndex Addr Flags >> eth0 UP 0/4 192.168.1.100 MULTICAST BROADCAST K= ERN_UP >> eth1 UP 1/3 192.168.2.100 MULTICAST BROADCAST K= ERN_UP >> eth2 UP 2/5 192.168.3.100 MULTICAST BROADCAST K= ERN_UP >> eth3 UP 3/7 192.168.4.100 MULTICAST BROADCAST K= ERN_UP >> register_vif UP 4/4 192.168.1.100 PIM_REGISTER KERN_UP >> >> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Igor Maravi=C4=87 wrote: >>> Ufffff... Xorp isn't doing any spoof checking in that I'm sure. >>> To me, even if there aren't any discard packets logged, it still looks >>> like reverse path filtering. >>> >>> Try this: >>> >>> sysctl -w net.ipv4.conf.default.rp_filter=3D0 >>> >>> if that doesn't work I really don't know what the problem is :) BR >>> Igor >>> >>> 2012/7/5 Ganesh Reddy K : >>>> Thanks a lot for the detailed inputs, >>>> >>>> I have added the routes as suggested, but still the traffic is not >>>> forwarded . Did not observe any discards in ' netstat -s IP'. >>>> >>>> In general, When multicast UDP cache-miss occurs and >>>> subscriber is listened for that group, Then only multicast routing >>>> services will add the multicast ROUTE in linux kernel . The >>>> forwarding is taken care by Linux routing mechanism. I guess, In >>>> this scenario, UDP cache miss is properly given to XORP daemons, but >>>> could not fulfill the entire route (i.e ip_mr_cache with valid Oif ) >>>> . There may be possible spoof check in PIM daemons . >>>> >>>> Is my thought justifies the behavior ? >>>> >>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >>>> netstat -s IP >>>> Ip: >>>> 67296 total packets received >>>> 0 forwarded >>>> 0 incoming packets discarded >>>> 42784 incoming packets delivered >>>> 41760 requests sent out >>>> Icmp: >>>> 0 ICMP messages received >>>> 0 input ICMP message failed. >>>> ICMP input histogram: >>>> 0 ICMP messages sent >>>> 0 ICMP messages failed >>>> ICMP output histogram: >>>> Tcp: >>>> 50 active connections openings >>>> 49 passive connection openings >>>> 0 failed connection attempts >>>> 0 connection resets received >>>> 35 connections established >>>> 40788 segments received >>>> 39837 segments send out >>>> 0 segments retransmited >>>> 0 bad segments received. >>>> 0 resets sent >>>> Udp: >>>> 0 packets received >>>> 0 packets to unknown port received. >>>> 0 packet receive errors >>>> 0 packets sent >>>> RcvbufErrors: 0 >>>> SndbufErrors: 0 >>>> UdpLite: >>>> InDatagrams: 0 >>>> NoPorts: 0 >>>> InErrors: 0 >>>> OutDatagrams: 0 >>>> RcvbufErrors: 0 >>>> SndbufErrors: 0 >>>> error parsing /proc/net/snmp: Success =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Igor Maravi=C4=87 wrote= : >>>>> sysctl -w net.ipv4.conf.eth3.rp_filter=3D0 sysctl -w >>>>> net.ipv4.conf.eth2.rp_filter=3D0 sysctl -w >>>>> net.ipv4.conf.all.rp_filter=3D0 sysctl -w >>>>> net.ipv4.conf.default.rp_filter=3D0 >>>>> >>>>> for me, echo isn't working. I use this commands to set values. >>>>> >>>>> 2012/7/5 Igor Maravi=C4=87 : >>>>>> My bad... I forgot set protocols static part... >>>>>> >>>>>> command in xorpsh is >>>>>> >>>>>> #set protocols static interface-route 192.168.17.17/32 >>>>>> next-hop-interface eth3 #set protocols static interface-route >>>>>> 192.168.17.17/32 next-hop-vif eth3 >>>>>> >>>>>> If my theory is ok when you send packets from H1 to H2, they are >>>>>> dropped in Linux. >>>>>> You can confirm this if you run >>>>>> >>>>>> netstat -s IP >>>>>> >>>>>> and you see that number of discarded IP packets is increasing. >>>>>> My proposals are for that case. >>>>>> BR >>>>>> Igor >>>>>> >>>>>> 2012/7/5 Reddy Ganesh-B38514 : >>>>>>> Echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/eth3/rp_filter >>>>>>> Echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/eth2/rp_filter >>>>>>> Echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/all/rp_filter >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As per the step 1, I have Disabled the rp_filter on the Device. Sti= ll the problem persists. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I tried to configure commands mentioned in step 2 also, But I could= not locate the exact commands in xorp config shell. Did I miss anything ?? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Igor Maravi=C4=87 [mailto:igorm@etf.rs] >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 12:50 PM >>>>>>> To: Ganesh Reddy K >>>>>>> Cc: xorp-users@xorp.org; Bv Rajesh-B35907; >>>>>>> nandakishoreie14@gmail.com; Reddy Ganesh-B38514 >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Xorp-users] Multicast traffic is not forwarded in a >>>>>>> specific deployment as mentioned in the mail >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm 99% sure that this isn't Xorp problem :) Linux, won't forward p= ackets if the src address in packet is unknown to him. >>>>>>> So, at least I think that, you have 2 possible solutions: >>>>>>> 1. Turn off rp filtering on Xorp box (reference - >>>>>>> http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.kernel.html) >>>>>>> 2. Set static interface route to 192.168.17.17/32 on eth3, with Xor= p ( >>>>>>> interface-route 192.168.17.17/32 { >>>>>>> next-hop-interface: "eth3" >>>>>>> next-hop-vif: "eth3" >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> ) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let me know if it worked. :) >>>>>>> BR >>>>>>> Igor >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2012/7/5 Ganesh Reddy K : >>>>>>>> Hi , >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We are trying to exercise a multicast traffic forwarding scenario >>>>>>>> on a powerPC device:-- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> After H2 subscribed for the Group G1, The G1 multicast traffic >>>>>>>> is not receiving at H2. But, when the H1 ip is in the same >>>>>>>> subnet, traffic is properly forwarded to H2 without any issues. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Test setup:-- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> H1 ------------------------------------ eth3 XORP eth2 >>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------- H2 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 192.168.17.17 192.168.4.2 192.168.3.2 >>>>>>>> 192.168.3.10 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> UDP-G1 multicaststream >>>>>>>> Mcast listener for G1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> G1-239.7.7.7 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1) COnfigured XORP on the device, xorp.conf contents are . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DXORP configuration =3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> protocols { >>>>>>>> fib2mrib { >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> igmp { >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> interface eth0 { >>>>>>>> vif eth0 { >>>>>>>> version: 3 >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> interface eth1 { >>>>>>>> vif eth1 { >>>>>>>> version: 3 >>>>>>>> } } >>>>>>>> interface eth2 { >>>>>>>> vif eth2 { >>>>>>>> version: 3 >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> interface eth3 { >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> vif eth3 { >>>>>>>> version: 3 >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> } } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> pimsm4 { >>>>>>>> interface eth0 { >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> vif eth0 { >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> interface "register_vif" { >>>>>>>> vif "register_vif" { >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> interface eth1 { >>>>>>>> vif eth1 { >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> interface eth2 { >>>>>>>> vif eth2 { >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> interface eth3 { >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> vif eth3 { >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> fea { >>>>>>>> unicast-forwarding4 { >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> unicast-forwarding6 { >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> interfaces { >>>>>>>> interface eth0 { >>>>>>>> vif eth0 { >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> default-system-config { >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> interface eth1 { >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> vif eth1 { >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> default-system-config { >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> interface eth2 { >>>>>>>> vif eth2 { >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> default-system-config { >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> interface eth3 { >>>>>>>> vif eth3 { >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> default-system-config { >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> plumbing { >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> mfea4 { >>>>>>>> interface eth0 { >>>>>>>> vif eth0 { >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> interface "register_vif" { >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> vif "register_vif" { >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> interface eth1 { >>>>>>>> vif eth1 { >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> interface eth2 { >>>>>>>> vif eth2 { >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> interface eth3 { >>>>>>>> vif eth3 { >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D xorp configuration =3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2) From H1, started sending UDP stream targeting G1 using VLC pla= yer. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Capture of "tcpdump -ni eth3" on Device shows the UDP-G1 >>>>>>>> packets as below .. >>>>>>>> 09:27:50.081561 IP 192.168.17.17.4146 > 239.7.7.7.1234: UDP, >>>>>>>> length >>>>>>>> 1328 .. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 3) added a static route for the unknown network on Device (i.e >>>>>>>> route add -net 192.168.17.17/32 dev eth3) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 4) From H2, started VLC listener for the group G1. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is verified in the Device that, IGMP join is received. >>>>>>>> capture of " show igmp group" on XORP console >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Interface Group Source LastReported Timeout = V State >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> eth0 224.0.0.2 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.2 223 = 3 E >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> eth0 224.0.0.13 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.2 223 = 3 E >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> eth0 224.0.0.22 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.2 223 = 3 E >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> eth1 224.0.0.2 0.0.0.0 192.168.2.2 225 = 3 E >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> eth1 224.0.0.13 0.0.0.0 192.168.2.2 225 = 3 E >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> eth1 224.0.0.22 0.0.0.0 192.168.2.2 225 = 3 E >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> eth2 224.0.0.2 0.0.0.0 192.168.3.2 231 = 3 E >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> eth2 224.0.0.13 0.0.0.0 192.168.3.2 231 = 3 E >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> eth2 224.0.0.22 0.0.0.0 192.168.3.2 231 = 3 E >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> eth2 239.1.1.1 0.0.0.0 192.168.3.10 228 = 3 E >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> eth2 239.7.7.7 0.0.0.0 192.168.3.10 228 = 3 E >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> eth2 239.255.255.250 0.0.0.0 192.168.3.10 228 = 3 E >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> eth3 224.0.0.2 0.0.0.0 192.168.4.2 230 = 3 E >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> eth3 224.0.0.13 0.0.0.0 192.168.4.2 230 = 3 E >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> eth3 224.0.0.22 0.0.0.0 192.168.4.2 230 = 3 E >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> root@p4080ds> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 5) But the traffic is not receiving at H2. Below is the statistics >>>>>>>> related ip_mr on the device >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> cat /proc/net/ip_mr* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Group Origin Iif Pkts Bytes Wrong Oifs >>>>>>>> EF070707 C0A81111 3 453 614268 0 >>>>>>>> Interface BytesIn PktsIn BytesOut PktsOut Flags Local Re= mote >>>>>>>> 0 eth0 0 0 0 0 00000 C0A80102 00= 000000 >>>>>>>> 1 eth1 0 0 0 0 00000 C0A80202 00= 000000 >>>>>>>> 2 eth2 0 0 0 0 00000 C0A80302 00= 000000 >>>>>>>> 3 eth3 3971724 2929 0 0 00000 C0A80402 00= 000000 >>>>>>>> 4 pimreg 0 0 0 0 00004 C0A80102 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 6) But, when the H1 ip is in the same subnet, traffic is >>>>>>>> properly forwarded to H2 without any issues. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Did anybody tried this scenario ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Ganesh >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Xorp-users mailing list >>>>>>>> Xorp-users@xorp.org >>>>>>>> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-users >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Xorp-users mailing list >> Xorp-users@xorp.org >> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-users >> >> From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org Mon Jul 16 08:30:45 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3E5821F8634 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:30:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.219 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.381, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UXLEydoBWJ3v for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:30:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C9E021F861C for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:30:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id CE70FB1E002; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:30:57 -0700 (PDT) To: ala@nexthop.com, jonathan.nicholas@itt.com, wfs@nexthop.com, stbryant@cisco.com, adrian@olddog.co.uk, stig@venaas.com, mmcbride7@gmail.com From: RFC Errata System Message-Id: <20120716153057.CE70FB1E002@rfc-editor.org> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:30:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:19:09 -0700 Cc: weinstein@bbn.com, pim@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [pim] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC3973 (3286) X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:30:45 -0000 The following errata report has been submitted for RFC3973, "Protocol Independent Multicast - Dense Mode (PIM-DM): Protocol Specification (Revised)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3973&eid=3286 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: Joseph Weinstein Section: 4.5 Original Text ------------- (Additional subection) Corrected Text -------------- 4.5.3 Receiving State Refresh Messages When a State Refresh message is received, it may trigger state transitions to the upstream state machine and related actions, as described in Section 4.4. It is then forwarded in accordance with Section 4.5.1. Notes ----- For clarity and completeness, an additional subsection is required to 4.5 describing the actions to be taken when a state refresh message is received. Since these actions have already been specified in Sections 4.4 and 4.5.1, it should be sufficient to simply refer to these sections. Without this additional subsection, an implementer could easily miss an important step in the processing of received state refresh messages. Instructions: ------------- This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC3973 ( draft-ietf-pim-dm-new-v2-05) -------------------------------------- Title : Protocol Independent Multicast - Dense Mode (PIM-DM): Protocol Specification (Revised) Publication Date : January 2005 Author(s) : A. Adams, J. Nicholas, W. Siadak Category : EXPERIMENTAL Source : protocol independent multicast Area : Routing Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG From ganeshreddyk@gmail.com Wed Jul 18 03:14:06 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1119521F869F for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 03:14:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JitXC7+vVcXj for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 03:14:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4025E21F869C for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 03:14:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bkty7 with SMTP id y7so1171316bkt.31 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 03:14:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=f2J/0Xbn3jh3nT8jaodI3v7sg+kT6GauGuVSvc9Qoy0=; b=PLfBa0tLIiRUwEUuwq2JAKRnMLXvHnHmih8IySsaF8SFg/ZAZdeS0rt0cEZC+HgbmF v9ACFnv3XqGcIimelsDnM0svUGYAt+dulyVMCNcUFGMPzmS5A+FGw3WBU3RjgkgFOAkD ftWh44tUN6XMQOiRDb7IekGNu5SfajOMdwpSok/xQDFYgOJBpw7cn81sD1mGSMb+uQKH WVObD3A2qmSEdF7I4OZFXydiXNzWQ5vjlzHg+NztgAhHm1SfJnxMeOesQELemplsJULl AH1mRCwUolZRC3vHx7CPlZM+kj09L1rrSqU8hlzyVpUshnoh4xU8zfo1KzMicOKonL99 EeNQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.152.207 with SMTP id h15mr1163727bkw.5.1342606494391; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 03:14:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.98.198 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 03:14:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 15:44:54 +0530 Message-ID: From: Ganesh Reddy K To: xorp-users@xorp.org, pim@ietf.org, Ben Greear Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Bv Rajesh-B35907 , Shyam Ponnaganti , Gandikota Syamasundar-B38867 , kesava Srinivas Subject: [pim] Multiple MRIB entries with same destination prefix. X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:14:06 -0000 Hi All, We have a specific requirement to add multiple MRIB-entries under same destination-prefix (for various interfaces). Multiple MRIB entries addition with same destination-prefix is not allowing in XORP. Always the entry is overwritten by the latest entry. With the present XORP behavior. Lookup/creation is happening based on the unique KEY =93destination-prefix=94. Configuration commands sequence is shown below. Is there any way to configure XORP such that, it should work like a light weight IGMPProxy to forward Multicast stream. (i.e Without PIM protocol processing, and extra processing)? Please suggest me to proceed furher? Thanks, Ganesh Configuration commands:-- In the below sequence of commands, the first entry containing =93eth1=94 is overwritten by the second MRIB route =93eth2=94. xorp@# set protocols static mrib-interface-route 192.168.11.54/32 next-hop-interface eth1 xorp@# set protocols static mrib-interface-route 192.168.11.54/32 next-hop-vif eth1 xorp@# commit xorp@# exit xorp@> show pim mrib DestPrefix NextHopRouter VifName VifIndex MetricPref Metric 192.168.1.0/24 192.168.1.100 eth0 0 0 0 192.168.2.0/24 192.168.2.100 eth1 2 0 0 192.168.3.0/24 192.168.3.100 eth2 3 0 0 192.168.11.54/32 0.0.0.0 eth1 2 1 1 xorp@P2020RDB> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D xorp@> configure xorp@# set protocols static mrib-interface-route 192.168.11.54/32 next-hop-interface eth2 xorp@# set protocols static mrib-interface-route 192.168.11.54/32 next-hop-vif eth2 xorp@# commit xorp@# exit xorp@> show pim mrib DestPrefix NextHopRouter VifName VifIndex MetricPref Metric 192.168.1.0/24 192.168.1.100 eth0 0 0 0 192.168.2.0/24 192.168.2.100 eth1 2 0 0 192.168.3.0/24 192.168.3.100 eth2 3 0 0 192.168.11.54/32 0.0.0.0 eth2 3 1 1 xorp@> From balajivenkat299@gmail.com Wed Jul 18 11:17:27 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2498C11E815A for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:17:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GUta25jSQmzH for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:17:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ACA011E8158 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:17:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pbcwy7 with SMTP id wy7so3072173pbc.31 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:18:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=iSDAjngHavE7auoLtDpiz6os5P/9JM/9qOmfAWnqzvA=; b=E3hgp+dOD/y861XQTC/nGym0/khRlxMOTIBigCgRS3R6ZI74fKq2sEZKmqhBCDBMKz TS+vwqBpYCGaOk1kZHHD8Og8KQ80DDUFYxpr/RFBBAGgl/GQqMg4hJcf3veSjFIUQffJ lGu0w0yuOlTzfGND2MPzlUfhfcFCap6kN9pK1/IYc+hqLBRtPwMpq71vigwWj5bP0wVL TzbkRnNYNJ3QcTo5ZfLTCz+hvecvNj7vQXrW/ZOqu6AjZSLoj3EaFZ24SnvUe+FH1iwW DEuf/GfzsDE0WFIoV0Zjk/BkPHzAPX1G2ewj67KQZWyaiPTpwScgqCI9tV+1n0xoIcRH CeJw== Received: by 10.68.135.201 with SMTP id pu9mr9302647pbb.146.1342635497225; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:18:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.15.105] ([122.164.167.166]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id tv6sm55925pbc.24.2012.07.18.11.18.14 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 18 Jul 2012 11:18:16 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.10.0.110310 Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 23:48:09 +0530 From: balaji venkat Venkataswami To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: I-D Action: draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-pim-power-02.txt In-Reply-To: <20120327163434.5520.76347.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Cc: Shankar Raman M J , Vasan Subject: [pim] FW: I-D Action: draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-pim-power-02.txt X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 18:17:27 -0000 Dear all, This draft was posted to the rtgwg working group in March 2012. Please feel free to give us your feedback on the same. Thanks and regards, Shankar and balaji On 27/03/12 10:04 PM, "internet-drafts@ietf.org" wrote: > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. > > Title : Building power optimal Multicast Trees > Author(s) : Shankar Raman > Balaji Venkat Venkataswami > Gaurav Raina > Vasan Srini > Filename : draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-pim-power-02.txt > Pages : 12 > Date : 2012-03-27 > > Power consumption in multicast replication operations is an area of > concern and choosing suitable replication points that can decrease > power consumption overall assumes importance. Multicast replication > capacity is an attribute of every line card of major routers and > multi-layer switches that support multicast in the core of an > Internet Service Provider (ISP) or an enterprise network. > > Currently multicast replication points on Point-to-Multipoint > Multicast Distribution trees consume power while delivering multiple > output streams of data from a given input stream. The multicast > distribution trees are constructed without any regard for a proper > placement of the replication points and consequent optimal power > consumption at these points. > > This results in overloading certain routers while under-utilizing > others. An optimal usage of these replication resources could reduce > power consumption on these routers bringing power consumption to > optimality. In this paper, we propose a mechanism by which Multicast > Distribution Trees are constructed for carrying multicast traffic > across multiple routers within a given network. We propose that these > Multicast Distribution Trees be built by using the information > pertaining to power-replication capacity ratio available with fine > grained components such as multicast capable line-cards of routers > and multi-layer switches deployed within a network. > > > >A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-pim-power-02.txt > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > >This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: >ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mjsraman-rtgwg-pim-power-02.txt > >_______________________________________________ >I-D-Announce mailing list >I-D-Announce@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce >Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt From Michael.McBride@huawei.com Thu Jul 19 15:14:37 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65DA811E8087 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 15:14:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zj8GygJNCI5p for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 15:14:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAFC421F84CF for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 15:14:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.2.3-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id AIE21711; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 18:15:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DFWEML407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.132) by dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 15:14:33 -0700 Received: from SZXEML416-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.155) by dfweml407-hub.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.132) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 19 Jul 2012 15:14:31 -0700 Received: from SZXEML536-MBX.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.115]) by szxeml416-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.155]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 06:14:25 +0800 From: Michael McBride To: "pim@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: agenda in vancouver Thread-Index: Ac1l+9vQiFbqo8aeQXSnE/2z6V3mvA== Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 22:14:24 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.212.246.85] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: [pim] agenda in vancouver X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 22:14:37 -0000 Here is what we have so far: 4601 update Vero Zheng 10 draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-01 Hitoshi Asaeda 10 draft-lts-pim-hello-mtu-01 Tina Tsou 10 draft-perreault-mboned-igmp-mld-translation-01 Simon Perreault 10 draft-taylor-pim-v4v6-translation-02 Tom Taylor 10 thanks, mike From roberttao@huawei.com Tue Jul 24 22:37:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50E7621F855B for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 22:37:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.549 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.450, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id buBCDYBgwwmv for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 22:37:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29E2521F855A for ; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 22:37:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.2.3-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id AIB06780; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 01:37:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DFWEML408-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.134) by dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 22:34:30 -0700 Received: from dfweml512-mbx.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.75]) by dfweml408-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.134]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 22:34:27 -0700 From: Roberttao To: Mike McBride Thread-Topic: [pim] agenda in vancouver Thread-Index: Ac1qJyZ/lbpFtjIsT0+dGssAAs2hSA== Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 05:34:27 +0000 Message-ID: <9E378A6551FE484FA7759260D56BD5FE172F4051@dfweml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.47.66.201] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9E378A6551FE484FA7759260D56BD5FE172F4051dfweml512mbxchi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:25:59 -0700 Cc: "pim@ietf.org" Subject: [pim] agenda in vancouver X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 05:37:35 -0000 --_000_9E378A6551FE484FA7759260D56BD5FE172F4051dfweml512mbxchi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Mike, I would like to request a slot during the Vancouver ITEF meeting for the 00= draft "draft-tao-mpls-pim-interworking-00". Group: PIM AREA: Routing Duration: 10 minutes Dates Preferred: Before 8/2 morning Conflicts to avoid: MPLS, PIM, L3VPN Material: Slides to be sent to you before 7/29. Please let me know if you would need any other information. Otherwise I loo= k forward to seeing you soon. Best, Robert --_000_9E378A6551FE484FA7759260D56BD5FE172F4051dfweml512mbxchi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Mike,

 

I would like to request a slot during the Vancouver ITEF meetin= g for the 00 draft “draft-tao-mpls-pim-interworking-00”.

 

Group: PIM

AREA: Routing

Duration: 10 minutes

Dates Preferred: Before 8/2 morning

Conflicts to avoid: MPLS, PIM, L3VPN

Material: Slides to be sent to you before 7/29.

 

Please let me know if you would need any other information. Oth= erwise I look forward to seeing you soon.

 

Best,

 

Robert

 =

--_000_9E378A6551FE484FA7759260D56BD5FE172F4051dfweml512mbxchi_-- From roberttao@huawei.com Thu Jul 26 17:20:29 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 326A211E80BF for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:20:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.273 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.273 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.725, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U06KYty5AbBy for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:20:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1257B11E80B3 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:20:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.2.3-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id AIC58848; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 20:20:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DFWEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.131) by dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:18:42 -0700 Received: from dfweml512-mbx.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.75]) by dfweml406-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.131]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:18:37 -0700 From: Roberttao To: Mike McBride Thread-Topic: [pim] agenda in vancouver Thread-Index: Ac1qJyZ/lbpFtjIsT0+dGssAAs2hSABZbESw Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 00:18:36 +0000 Message-ID: <9E378A6551FE484FA7759260D56BD5FE172F44F0@dfweml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.47.70.207] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9E378A6551FE484FA7759260D56BD5FE172F44F0dfweml512mbxchi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 09:31:48 -0700 Cc: "pim@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [pim] agenda in vancouver X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 00:20:29 -0000 --_000_9E378A6551FE484FA7759260D56BD5FE172F44F0dfweml512mbxchi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Mike, Would you confirm if this one goes under PIM agenda? Thanks, Robert Tao ________________________________ From: Roberttao Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 10:34 PM To: 'Mike McBride' Cc: 'pim@ietf.org' Subject: [pim] agenda in vancouver Hi Mike, I would like to request a slot during the Vancouver ITEF meeting for the 00= draft "draft-tao-mpls-pim-interworking-00". Group: PIM AREA: Routing Duration: 10 minutes Dates Preferred: Before 8/2 morning Conflicts to avoid: MPLS, PIM, L3VPN Material: Slides to be sent to you before 7/29. Please let me know if you would need any other information. Otherwise I loo= k forward to seeing you soon. Best, Robert --_000_9E378A6551FE484FA7759260D56BD5FE172F44F0dfweml512mbxchi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi M= ike,

 

Woul= d you confirm if this one goes under PIM agenda? Thanks,<= /font>

 

Robe= rt Tao

 

 

From:<= span lang=3D"EN-US" style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma"> Roberttao
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012= 10:34 PM
To: 'Mike McBride'
Cc: 'pim@ietf.org'
Subject: [pim] agenda in vancouver

 

Hi Mike,

 

I would like to request a slot during the Vancouver ITEF meetin= g for the 00 draft “draft-tao-mpls-pim-interworking-00”.

 

Group: PIM

AREA: Routing

Duration: 10 minutes

Dates Preferred: Before 8/2 morning

Conflicts to avoid: MPLS, PIM, L3VPN

Material: Slides to be sent to you before 7/29.

 

Please let me know if you would need any other information. Oth= erwise I look forward to seeing you soon.

 

Best,

 

Robert

 

--_000_9E378A6551FE484FA7759260D56BD5FE172F44F0dfweml512mbxchi_-- From Michael.McBride@huawei.com Tue Jul 31 08:55:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B3D021F8505 for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 08:55:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Tt28EEbZXYJz for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 08:55:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dfwrgout.huawei.com (dfwrgout.huawei.com [206.16.17.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3507821F84FC for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 08:55:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.9.243 (EHLO dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.9.243]) by dfwrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.2.3-GA FastPath) with ESMTP id AIM79532; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:55:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DFWEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.151) by dfweml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.9.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 08:53:50 -0700 Received: from SZXEML407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.94) by dfweml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 08:53:49 -0700 Received: from SZXEML536-MBX.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.115]) by szxeml407-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.94]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 23:53:41 +0800 From: Michael McBride To: "pim@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: updated agenda Thread-Index: Ac1vNKeWN2FytLHQSzqQTXMCh4KXqQ== Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:53:41 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.212.244.247] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: [pim] updated agenda X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:55:23 -0000 WG Status Stig/Mike 05 4601 update Jeffrey Zhang 05 draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-01 Hitoshi Asaeda 10 draft-lts-pim-hello-mtu-01 Tom Taylor 10 draft-taylor-pim-v4v6-translation-02 Tom Taylor 10 draft-tao-mpls-pim-interworking-00 Robert Tao 10 Secure IGMP Bill Atwood 10 draft-liu-multimob-igmp-mld-wireless-mob... Mike McBride 05 It's a tight 65 min agenda. All presentations have been uploaded. See you a= t 10:30. mike From internet-drafts@ietf.org Tue Jul 31 13:25:51 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E6BA21F8496; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:25:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.387 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.387 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.212, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y9M16IG5-TpE; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:25:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E84621F885D; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:25:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.33 Message-ID: <20120731202551.22588.19007.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:25:51 -0700 Cc: pim@ietf.org Subject: [pim] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pim-ecmp-05.txt X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 20:25:51 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Protocol Independent Multicast Working Gr= oup of the IETF. Title : Protocol Independent Multicast ECMP Redirect Author(s) : Yiqun Cai Liming Wei Heidi Ou Vishal Arya Sunil Jethwani Filename : draft-ietf-pim-ecmp-05.txt Pages : 12 Date : 2012-07-31 Abstract: A Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) router uses the Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF) procedure to select an upstream interface and router to build forwarding state. When there are equal cost multiple paths (ECMP), existing implementations often use hash algorithms to select a path. Such algorithms do not allow the spread of traffic among the ECMPs according to administrative metrics. This usually leads to inefficient or ineffective use of network resources. This document introduces the ECMP Redirect, a mechanism to improve the RPF procedure over ECMPs. It allows ECMP path selection to be based on administratively selected metrics, such as data transmission delays, path preferences and routing metrics. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-ecmp There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pim-ecmp-05 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-pim-ecmp-05 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/