From mmcbride7@gmail.com Mon Feb 4 13:45:52 2013 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 C1F4421F853D for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 13:45:52 -0800 (PST) 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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Srdohpw81772 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 13:45:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wg0-f46.google.com (mail-wg0-f46.google.com [74.125.82.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 108A421F8528 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 13:45:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id fg15so4996978wgb.25 for ; Mon, 04 Feb 2013 13:45:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=hjZ3OnaeIfQ5Ix2CW10HNdE2fqGDpvMTBc4rGjb844s=; b=r9i9tc0ur54ftFyxhGbbXr1WDRoGXCcWLiwIBi7qna54I3Xe5JX3iH6tjeqZBN5kpn VSnhb9uGWtTqsJOFOdKa3ROeuwIUE7MZtOvqBgxUj5DGKpWBjJIi1avd5qD5UpmGH0F4 pUiUZoihiMqwuUj9xiHZGamo/uOBH9v1UJxUb3WiYHsYWgnF71NcUQEu33oEsSS5dlX8 6aTkzQ4IAjyF/Z6i5I4mEgdZEPyAFIlVNmdQPD8aPD0PM7hpdl1V2G66gV74vidhVlhp TjKo87WDRXZHToZPhX9XtwkF4T6FpHu6bYZMEi3BF1T1RW5WQHlHO0Viioa/32K0F4Mw sxjA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.72.148 with SMTP id d20mr12952716wiv.31.1360014351251; Mon, 04 Feb 2013 13:45:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.154.167 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 13:45:51 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 13:45:51 -0800 Message-ID: From: Mike McBride To: pim@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [pim] draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking wglc 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, 04 Feb 2013 21:45:52 -0000 With the latest rev of this explicit tracking draft (see below) we are ready for a two week WGLC starting today and ending on Feb 18th. Please carefully review this draft and comment on its readiness to progress. http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-04.txt thank you. mike On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:34 PM, wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Protocol Independent Multicast Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : IGMP/MLD-Based Explicit Membership Tracking Function for Multicast Routers > Author(s) : Hitoshi Asaeda > Filename : draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-04.txt > Pages : 10 > Date : 2013-01-28 > > Abstract: > This document describes the IGMP/MLD-based explicit membership > tracking function for multicast routers supporting IGMPv3/MLDv2. The > explicit tracking function contributes to saving network resources > and fast leaves (i.e. shortening leave latency). > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-04 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-04 > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim From stig@venaas.com Wed Feb 6 15:37:17 2013 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 D42AC21F8459 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 15:37:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bfVEMJeNt0Ux for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 15:37:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from ufisa.uninett.no (ufisa.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2:158:38:152:126]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CBC821F8457 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 15:37:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.33.12.93] (128-107-239-233.cisco.com [128.107.239.233]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1E8BC7FC3 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2013 00:37:13 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <5112E923.4040709@venaas.com> Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 15:37:07 -0800 From: Stig Venaas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "pim@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [pim] Adoption of draft-zzp-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-00.txt as a pim wg work item 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, 06 Feb 2013 23:37:17 -0000 As we've decided long ago in the wg, we need to address the 4601 errata and we want to progress 4601 on standards track. As part of this we need to have an implementation report. We did a survey and the results are collected in draft-zzp-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-00.txt I think it makes sense to work towards publishing the survey results as an RFC. We did this with e.g. RFC 4601. See RFC 4602. If we want to publish the report as an RFC, then I think we should first adopt it as a WG work item, and do the usual WG process to make sure it is in the shape we want it to be before publication. This is an adoption call to see if we should adopt the survey report at this stage. If you think it makes sense to have it as a WG item, and it is of sufficient quality, then consider voting yes. If you believe we should not push this through as a WG item, or it is of insufficient quality at this point, then you probably want to vote no. I hope this is sufficient background. So based on this, please respond and state whether we should adopt this document as a WG item at this point. Please respond by February 20th. Stig From william.atwood@concordia.ca Wed Feb 6 17:04:57 2013 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 3811621F8550 for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 17:04:57 -0800 (PST) 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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nBCsJIlLumZW for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 17:04:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from oldperseverance.encs.concordia.ca (oldperseverance.encs.concordia.ca [132.205.96.94]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D33E21F853D for ; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 17:04:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (bill@poise.encs.concordia.ca [132.205.2.209]) by oldperseverance.encs.concordia.ca (envelope-from william.atwood@concordia.ca) (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id r1714sk0009284; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 20:04:55 -0500 Message-ID: <5112FDB6.4010209@concordia.ca> Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 20:04:54 -0500 From: John William Atwood Organization: Concordia University, Montreal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stig Venaas , pim@ietf.org References: <5112E923.4040709@venaas.com> In-Reply-To: <5112E923.4040709@venaas.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.58 on oldperseverance.encs.concordia.ca at 2013/02/06 20:04:55 EST Subject: Re: [pim] Adoption of draft-zzp-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-00.txt as a pim wg work item 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, 07 Feb 2013 01:04:57 -0000 I believe that this document is ready for adoption as a WG item. Bill On 2/6/2013 6:37 PM, Stig Venaas wrote: > As we've decided long ago in the wg, we need to address the 4601 errata > and we want to progress 4601 on standards track. As part of this we need > to have an implementation report. We did a survey and the results are > collected in > > draft-zzp-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-00.txt > > I think it makes sense to work towards publishing the survey results as > an RFC. We did this with e.g. RFC 4601. See RFC 4602. If we want to > publish the report as an RFC, then I think we should first adopt it as > a WG work item, and do the usual WG process to make sure it is in the > shape we want it to be before publication. > > This is an adoption call to see if we should adopt the survey report > at this stage. If you think it makes sense to have it as a WG item, and > it is of sufficient quality, then consider voting yes. If you believe we > should not push this through as a WG item, or it is of insufficient > quality at this point, then you probably want to vote no. > > I hope this is sufficient background. So based on this, please respond > and state whether we should adopt this document as a WG item at this > point. > > Please respond by February 20th. > > Stig > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim -- Dr. J.W. Atwood, Eng. tel: +1 (514) 848-2424 x3046 Distinguished Professor Emeritus fax: +1 (514) 848-2830 Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering Concordia University EV 3.185 email:william.atwood@concordia.ca 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. West http://users.encs.concordia.ca/~bill Montreal, Quebec Canada H3G 1M8 From stig@venaas.com Fri Feb 8 09:32:56 2013 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 EFC8321F8867 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 09:32:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y20L-deQdNnS for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 09:32:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from ufisa.uninett.no (ufisa.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2:158:38:152:126]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5365B21F86B6 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 09:32:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.33.12.93] (128-107-239-233.cisco.com [128.107.239.233]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EB1267FC9 for ; Fri, 8 Feb 2013 18:32:54 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <511536C4.6090507@venaas.com> Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 09:32:52 -0800 From: Stig Venaas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pim@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [pim] pim meeting scheduled for Friday 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, 08 Feb 2013 17:32:57 -0000 A heads up for the Orlando schedule. This time we're scheduled for a Friday, so please plan accordingly. It is only the draft agenda though, so it may still change. The slot we got currently is pim Session 1 (2:00:00) Friday, Morning Session I 0900-1100 Room Name: Boca 1 Stig From bharat_joshi@infosys.com Mon Feb 11 22:10:58 2013 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 9C9D421F8C50 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 22:10:58 -0800 (PST) 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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W97ePCExe4i0 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 22:10:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from KECGATE08.infosys.com (kecgate08.infosys.com [122.98.10.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07B4421F8C4C for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 22:10:56 -0800 (PST) X-TM-IMSS-Message-ID: <77bdc25d0000b1b9@infosys.com> Received: from blrkechub03.ad.infosys.com ([10.66.236.43]) by infosys.com ([122.98.10.33]) with ESMTP (TREND IMSS SMTP Service 7.1) id 77bdc25d0000b1b9 ; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 11:46:27 +0530 Received: from BLRKECHUB07.ad.infosys.com (10.66.236.117) by blrkechub03.ad.infosys.com (10.66.236.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 11:40:31 +0530 Received: from BLRKECMBX13.ad.infosys.com ([fe80::c43d:ba67:abc0:11c3]) by BLRKECHUB07.ad.infosys.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 11:40:31 +0530 From: Bharat Joshi To: "pim@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [pim] Adoption of draft-zzp-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-00.txt as a pim wg work item Thread-Index: AQHOBMLoirMHqFVDP02sYuvNcaNImZh1wN60 Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 06:10:30 +0000 Message-ID: <35347FBF2796F94E936EE76C0E6047ED32E076B9@BLRKECMBX13.ad.infosys.com> References: <5112E923.4040709@venaas.com> In-Reply-To: <5112E923.4040709@venaas.com> Accept-Language: en-US, en-IN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.200.132] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [pim] Adoption of draft-zzp-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-00.txt as a pim wg work item 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, 12 Feb 2013 06:10:58 -0000 Hi, I support adoption of this draft. I have few questions/suggestions = as mentioned below. Regards, Bharat Questions/Suggestions: 1. In abstract: This document provides supporting documentation to advance the Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) routing protocol from IETF Proposed Standard to Internet Standard Should we use the term 'multicast routing protocol' instead of just 'rout= ing protocol'? 2. If we decide to change the above, there are some other places where we= use 'routing protocol' so please review the same and see if we want to c= hange them as well. 3. In section 2.2.2, Small typo in " deployments ofeither " 4. In section 2.2.2, "or Pim Multicast Border" -> "or PIM Multicast Borde= r" 5. In section 2.2.3, "The number of Sparse-Mode RPs deployed", I am not s= ure what we mean by 'Sparse-Mode RPs'. Is this term defined somewhere els= e? 6. In section 2.2.3, I did not get the difference of the two in the follo= wing sentence: Two operator have deployed Anycast-RP using MSDP and three operators deploy both MSDP and PIM-SM Anycast-RP. In the second case, what was MSDP used for? 7. In section 2.3.1, can we rework the following sentence a little: Four vendors have reported implementations based on [RFC4601] and two have implemented PIM Sparse-Mode based on [RFC2362] to something like: Four vendors have PIM Sparse-Mode implementations based on [RFC4601]. Two= vendors have PIM Sparse-Mode implementations based on [RFC2362]. ________________________________________ From: pim-bounces@ietf.org [pim-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of Stig Venaa= s [stig@venaas.com] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 5:07 AM To: pim@ietf.org Subject: [pim] Adoption of draft-zzp-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-00.= txt as a pim wg work item As we've decided long ago in the wg, we need to address the 4601 errata and we want to progress 4601 on standards track. As part of this we need to have an implementation report. We did a survey and the results are collected in draft-zzp-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-00.txt I think it makes sense to work towards publishing the survey results as an RFC. We did this with e.g. RFC 4601. See RFC 4602. If we want to publish the report as an RFC, then I think we should first adopt it as a WG work item, and do the usual WG process to make sure it is in the shape we want it to be before publication. This is an adoption call to see if we should adopt the survey report at this stage. If you think it makes sense to have it as a WG item, and it is of sufficient quality, then consider voting yes. If you believe we should not push this through as a WG item, or it is of insufficient quality at this point, then you probably want to vote no. I hope this is sufficient background. So based on this, please respond and state whether we should adopt this document as a WG item at this point. Please respond by February 20th. Stig _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim **************** CAUTION - Disclaimer ***************** This e-mail contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended sol= ely for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, p= lease notify the sender by e-mail and delete the original message. Further, you= are not to copy, disclose, or distribute this e-mail or its contents to any other= person and any such actions are unlawful. This e-mail may contain viruses. Infosys h= as taken every reasonable precaution to minimize this risk, but is not liable for = any damage you may sustain as a result of any virus in this e-mail. You should carry= out your own virus checks before opening the e-mail or attachment. Infosys reserve= s the right to monitor and review the content of all messages sent to or from t= his e-mail address. Messages sent to or from this e-mail address may be stored on th= e Infosys e-mail system. ***INFOSYS******** End of Disclaimer ********INFOSYS*** From stig@venaas.com Tue Feb 12 15:32:08 2013 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 DF0FB21F88CC for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:32:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, 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 ZhBIvNFoTaiv for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:32:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from ufisa.uninett.no (ufisa.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2:158:38:152:126]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BAAE21F88B5 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:32:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.33.12.93] (128-107-239-233.cisco.com [128.107.239.233]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C556A7FB7 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:32:03 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <511AD0F0.9070206@venaas.com> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:32:00 -0800 From: Stig Venaas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "pim@ietf.org" References: <5112E923.4040709@venaas.com> In-Reply-To: <5112E923.4040709@venaas.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [pim] Adoption of draft-zzp-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-00.txt as a pim wg work item 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, 12 Feb 2013 23:32:09 -0000 Dear WG We have so far got only 2 responses to this. Please respond by the 20th. We need more responses in order to make a decision. Many thanks to those that responded! Stig On 2/6/2013 3:37 PM, Stig Venaas wrote: > As we've decided long ago in the wg, we need to address the 4601 errata > and we want to progress 4601 on standards track. As part of this we need > to have an implementation report. We did a survey and the results are > collected in > > draft-zzp-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-00.txt > > I think it makes sense to work towards publishing the survey results as > an RFC. We did this with e.g. RFC 4601. See RFC 4602. If we want to > publish the report as an RFC, then I think we should first adopt it as > a WG work item, and do the usual WG process to make sure it is in the > shape we want it to be before publication. > > This is an adoption call to see if we should adopt the survey report > at this stage. If you think it makes sense to have it as a WG item, and > it is of sufficient quality, then consider voting yes. If you believe we > should not push this through as a WG item, or it is of insufficient > quality at this point, then you probably want to vote no. > > I hope this is sufficient background. So based on this, please respond > and state whether we should adopt this document as a WG item at this > point. > > Please respond by February 20th. > > Stig > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim From adrian@olddog.co.uk Fri Feb 15 11:45:54 2013 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 4FCDE21F8632 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 11:45:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SpSVk1Zqa3C3 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 11:45:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FA9221F8692 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 11:45:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r1FJjiEe001799; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 19:45:44 GMT Received: from 950129200 (089144192180.atnat0001.highway.a1.net [89.144.192.180]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r1FJjdbH001785 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 15 Feb 2013 19:45:42 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Stig Venaas'" References: <5112E923.4040709@venaas.com> <511AD0F0.9070206@venaas.com> In-Reply-To: <511AD0F0.9070206@venaas.com> Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 19:45:37 -0000 Message-ID: <000001ce0bb5$09dda5b0$1d98f110$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQH3+rpL3y89S9xYNmdTu6lYVeW5iQJA2TD7mBVftWA= Content-Language: en-gb Cc: pim@ietf.org Subject: Re: [pim] Adoption of draft-zzp-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-00.txt as a pim wg work item X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 19:45:54 -0000 Hi Stig, If I make so bold as to respond as a sometimes PIM participant: yes, I think this is a valuable document for the WG to adopt. As AD, I think moving 4601 forward and also resolving all the errata in a new document are significantly important activities. This document is not required to republish 4601 with all the fixes, but is needed to move 4601 forward. I would encourage the WG to do that and show that PIM has come of age. Cheers, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: pim-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pim-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stig > Venaas > Sent: 12 February 2013 23:32 > To: pim@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [pim] Adoption of draft-zzp-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report- > 00.txt as a pim wg work item > > Dear WG > > We have so far got only 2 responses to this. Please respond by the 20th. > We need more responses in order to make a decision. > > Many thanks to those that responded! > > Stig > > On 2/6/2013 3:37 PM, Stig Venaas wrote: > > As we've decided long ago in the wg, we need to address the 4601 errata > > and we want to progress 4601 on standards track. As part of this we need > > to have an implementation report. We did a survey and the results are > > collected in > > > > draft-zzp-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-00.txt > > > > I think it makes sense to work towards publishing the survey results as > > an RFC. We did this with e.g. RFC 4601. See RFC 4602. If we want to > > publish the report as an RFC, then I think we should first adopt it as > > a WG work item, and do the usual WG process to make sure it is in the > > shape we want it to be before publication. > > > > This is an adoption call to see if we should adopt the survey report > > at this stage. If you think it makes sense to have it as a WG item, and > > it is of sufficient quality, then consider voting yes. If you believe we > > should not push this through as a WG item, or it is of insufficient > > quality at this point, then you probably want to vote no. > > > > I hope this is sufficient background. So based on this, please respond > > and state whether we should adopt this document as a WG item at this > > point. > > > > Please respond by February 20th. > > > > Stig > > _______________________________________________ > > pim mailing list > > pim@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim > > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim From gaoxlh@gmail.com Mon Feb 18 18:38:28 2013 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 15DB021F8815 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:38:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.11 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tNoYtSgZ9nk5 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:38:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-f42.google.com (mail-pa0-f42.google.com [209.85.220.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06B2F21F8D05 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:38:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id kq12so3151115pab.29 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:38:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:x-mailer:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=T2s28WKDYMXcBa9qIZiAJUst30kCwKMMv+WtILCQJDg=; b=WC0g8ufyvQ62mlnkNBD5qzh15FOqPo7Lcsjiakyn3Io8a29IEieqgbob9R5UA+Ug9M nxt88NKL9KPMmZHwyZpjckVrT48On5DUpUub/9pzB6giWDIrCfx8qSJUOOHh6/AaDYnp gIjtE7oZp3B67zly61uJ5UltO06UR444sOovpB0xydrgRp7wwE7mCIJxI+wJ0tzWxFpM JIub+1wvv4rjoJJNCYz9+19jldq1IARUJRUfpLXm8pYciAGl5+i0YLgrMHDAlhExku8D tOJkuiJhnhwPreDs89QaGqjTSlUjw8Legs731tvO+MloH7tUnDzh4UZyoqVT5PjWAeoD DL0A== X-Received: by 10.66.88.164 with SMTP id bh4mr41386297pab.41.1361241499494; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:38:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from admin-PC ([60.247.46.41]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id iu10sm16280655pbc.13.2013.02.18.18.38.15 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:38:18 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:38:17 +0800 From: "Shuai Gao" To: "pim" Message-ID: <201302191038140383847@gmail.com> X-mailer: Foxmail 6, 14, 103, 30 [cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [pim] New draft: draft-zhang-pim-multi-upstream-igmp-mld-proxy-00 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, 19 Feb 2013 02:38:28 -0000 Dear all, We have a new draft about multiple upsreams extentions to IGMP/MLD proxy. You can visit the following links for the draft. 1. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6D0eGbv_V4rVTY3Wk55TmpYejA/edit?usp=sharing or 2. http://pan.baidu.com/share/link?shareid=284132&uk=2016399810 Any suggestions, comments, and contributions welcome! Best, Shuai Gao National Engineering Lab for Next Generation Internet Interconnection Devices Beijing Jiaotong University Beijing, China, 100044 gaoxlh@gmail.com 2013-02-19 From Michael.McBride@huawei.com Mon Feb 18 19:05:11 2013 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 42CED21E80BB for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 19:05:11 -0800 (PST) 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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YazwrAIFSKes for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 19:05:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6F3521E804B for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 19:05:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AOO76430; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 03:05:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 03:04:35 +0000 Received: from DFWEML408-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.134) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 03:05:06 +0000 Received: from DFWEML504-MBS.china.huawei.com ([10.124.31.88]) by dfweml408-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.134]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 19:05:04 -0800 From: Michael McBride To: Mike McBride , "pim@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [pim] draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking wglc Thread-Index: AQHOAyEHIiVmKNGaSU+YYMvFRAJtFJiAk3NA Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 03:05:03 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.212.246.152] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: Re: [pim] draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking wglc 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, 19 Feb 2013 03:05:11 -0000 That wasn't a very successful wglc. Zero response. It's difficult for Stig = and I to justify progressing this draft beyond the wg. We will discuss this= further during the pim meeting in Orlando and will issue another wglc at a= later date if that's what is decided.=20 mike > -----Original Message----- > From: pim-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pim-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Mike McBride > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 1:46 PM > To: pim@ietf.org > Subject: [pim] draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking wglc >=20 > With the latest rev of this explicit tracking draft (see below) we are > ready for a two week WGLC starting today and ending on Feb 18th. > Please carefully review this draft and comment on its readiness to > progress. >=20 > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-04.txt >=20 > thank you. > mike >=20 > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:34 PM, wrote: > > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > > This draft is a work item of the Protocol Independent Multicast > Working Group of the IETF. > > > > Title : IGMP/MLD-Based Explicit Membership Tracking > Function for Multicast Routers > > Author(s) : Hitoshi Asaeda > > Filename : draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-04.txt > > Pages : 10 > > Date : 2013-01-28 > > > > Abstract: > > This document describes the IGMP/MLD-based explicit membership > > tracking function for multicast routers supporting IGMPv3/MLDv2. > The > > explicit tracking function contributes to saving network resources > > and fast leaves (i.e. shortening leave latency). > > > > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking > > > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-04 > > > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-04 > > > > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > pim mailing list > > pim@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim From zzhang@juniper.net Tue Feb 19 14:22:29 2013 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 4BED521F88C7 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:22:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.467 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WX-22cCn3kpQ for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:22:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod7og116.obsmtp.com (exprod7og116.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.219]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C699B21F88B9 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:22:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob116.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUSP7I2Oz7mEsSfRiSLq+Uf6jrxh5DMqG@postini.com; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:22:27 PST Received: from P-CLDFE01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.59) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:19:31 -0800 Received: from o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.224) by o365mail.juniper.net (172.24.192.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.355.2; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:19:30 -0800 Received: from ch1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (216.32.181.185) by o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.224) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:28:09 -0800 Received: from mail160-ch1-R.bigfish.com (10.43.68.231) by CH1EHSOBE010.bigfish.com (10.43.70.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 22:19:30 +0000 Received: from mail160-ch1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail160-ch1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C8902E016D for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 22:19:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.236.101; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); (null); H:BY2PRD0510HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT X-SpamScore: -23 X-BigFish: PS-23(zz9371I542I1432Izz1f42h1ee6h1de0h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ahzz1033IL8275dhz2dh2a8h668h839h944hd25hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh15d0h162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1155h) Received: from mail160-ch1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail160-ch1 (MessageSwitch) id 1361312368313062_4336; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 22:19:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from CH1EHSMHS041.bigfish.com (snatpool1.int.messaging.microsoft.com [10.43.68.250]) by mail160-ch1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 404CD1200AA; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 22:19:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from BY2PRD0510HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.236.101) by CH1EHSMHS041.bigfish.com (10.43.69.250) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 22:19:27 +0000 Received: from BY2PRD0510MB389.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.4.56]) by BY2PRD0510HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.84.36]) with mapi id 14.16.0263.000; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 22:19:26 +0000 From: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" To: "Rishabh Parekh (riparekh)" , "pim@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [pim] Adoption of draft-zzp-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-00.txt as a pim wg work item Thread-Index: AQHOBMLwsGN1y+6RAEGMiqN7QoTx95h1xcsAgAwNdlA= Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 22:19:24 +0000 Message-ID: <0BF0FCC78340F147BE76A6F5762318A82284459D@BY2PRD0510MB389.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: <5112E923.4040709@venaas.com> <35347FBF2796F94E936EE76C0E6047ED32E076B9@BLRKECMBX13.ad.infosys.com> In-Reply-To: <35347FBF2796F94E936EE76C0E6047ED32E076B9@BLRKECMBX13.ad.infosys.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [66.129.232.2] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn% X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%CISCO.COM$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%IETF.ORG$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net Subject: Re: [pim] Adoption of draft-zzp-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-00.txt as a pim wg work item 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, 19 Feb 2013 22:22:29 -0000 Rishabh, > Two operator have deployed Anycast-RP using MSDP and three operators > deploy both MSDP and PIM-SM Anycast-RP. >=20 > In the second case, what was MSDP used for? Is it that one is w/o MSDP and the other is w/ MSDP? > 5. In section 2.2.3, "The number of Sparse-Mode RPs deployed", I am not > sure what we mean by 'Sparse-Mode RPs'. Is this term defined somewhere > else? Should we remove the "Sparse-Mode"? Is there a need to emphasize it is not = Bidir RP? Thanks. Jeffrey > -----Original Message----- > From: pim-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pim-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Bharat Joshi > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 1:11 AM > To: pim@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [pim] Adoption of draft-zzp-pim-rfc4601-update-survey- > report-00.txt as a pim wg work item >=20 > Hi, >=20 > I support adoption of this draft. I have few > questions/suggestions as mentioned below. >=20 > Regards, > Bharat >=20 > Questions/Suggestions: >=20 > 1. In abstract: >=20 > This document provides supporting documentation to advance the > Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) routing > protocol from IETF Proposed Standard to Internet Standard >=20 > Should we use the term 'multicast routing protocol' instead of just > 'routing protocol'? >=20 > 2. If we decide to change the above, there are some other places where > we use 'routing protocol' so please review the same and see if we want > to change them as well. >=20 > 3. In section 2.2.2, Small typo in " deployments ofeither " >=20 > 4. In section 2.2.2, "or Pim Multicast Border" -> "or PIM Multicast > Border" >=20 > 5. In section 2.2.3, "The number of Sparse-Mode RPs deployed", I am not > sure what we mean by 'Sparse-Mode RPs'. Is this term defined somewhere > else? >=20 > 6. In section 2.2.3, I did not get the difference of the two in the > following sentence: >=20 > Two operator have deployed Anycast-RP using MSDP and three operators > deploy both MSDP and PIM-SM Anycast-RP. >=20 > In the second case, what was MSDP used for? >=20 > 7. In section 2.3.1, can we rework the following sentence a little: >=20 > Four vendors have reported implementations based on [RFC4601] and two > have implemented PIM Sparse-Mode based on [RFC2362] >=20 > to something like: >=20 > Four vendors have PIM Sparse-Mode implementations based on [RFC4601]. > Two vendors > have PIM Sparse-Mode implementations based on [RFC2362]. >=20 > ________________________________________ > From: pim-bounces@ietf.org [pim-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of Stig > Venaas [stig@venaas.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 5:07 AM > To: pim@ietf.org > Subject: [pim] Adoption of draft-zzp-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report- > 00.txt as a pim wg work item >=20 > As we've decided long ago in the wg, we need to address the 4601 errata > and we want to progress 4601 on standards track. As part of this we > need > to have an implementation report. We did a survey and the results are > collected in >=20 > draft-zzp-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-00.txt >=20 > I think it makes sense to work towards publishing the survey results as > an RFC. We did this with e.g. RFC 4601. See RFC 4602. If we want to > publish the report as an RFC, then I think we should first adopt it as > a WG work item, and do the usual WG process to make sure it is in the > shape we want it to be before publication. >=20 > This is an adoption call to see if we should adopt the survey report > at this stage. If you think it makes sense to have it as a WG item, and > it is of sufficient quality, then consider voting yes. If you believe > we > should not push this through as a WG item, or it is of insufficient > quality at this point, then you probably want to vote no. >=20 > I hope this is sufficient background. So based on this, please respond > and state whether we should adopt this document as a WG item at this > point. >=20 > Please respond by February 20th. >=20 > Stig > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim >=20 > **************** CAUTION - Disclaimer ***************** > This e-mail contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended > solely > for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, > please > notify the sender by e-mail and delete the original message. Further, > you are not > to copy, disclose, or distribute this e-mail or its contents to any > other person and > any such actions are unlawful. This e-mail may contain viruses. Infosys > has taken > every reasonable precaution to minimize this risk, but is not liable > for any damage > you may sustain as a result of any virus in this e-mail. You should > carry out your > own virus checks before opening the e-mail or attachment. Infosys > reserves the > right to monitor and review the content of all messages sent to or from > this e-mail > address. Messages sent to or from this e-mail address may be stored on > the > Infosys e-mail system. > ***INFOSYS******** End of Disclaimer ********INFOSYS*** > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim From stig@venaas.com Tue Feb 19 18:49:08 2013 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 524AC21F8806 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:49:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HP0nLa0utMmH for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:49:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from ufisa.uninett.no (ufisa.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2:158:38:152:126]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADAF821F87FF for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:49:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.21.75.184] (128-107-239-233.cisco.com [128.107.239.233]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 031BA7FB9; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 03:49:02 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <51243A4A.4010009@venaas.com> Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:51:54 -0800 From: Stig Venaas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "pim@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "pim-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: [pim] Request for pim wg Orlando agenda items 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, 20 Feb 2013 02:49:08 -0000 If you would like a slot on the pim agenda for Orlando, please email Mike and me with your request ASAP. Note that you can email us both by using the pim-chairs@tools.ietf.org address. Stig From bharat_joshi@infosys.com Sun Feb 24 22:39:21 2013 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 3596B21F91D4 for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2013 22:39:21 -0800 (PST) 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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id INE18-zDJBsk for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2013 22:39:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from kecgate02.infosys.com (kecgate02.infosys.com [122.98.14.32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0F1821F914F for ; Sun, 24 Feb 2013 22:39:15 -0800 (PST) X-TM-IMSS-Message-ID: <57aba76000097843@infosys.com> Received: from blrkechub03.ad.infosys.com ([10.66.236.43]) by infosys.com ([122.98.14.32]) with ESMTP (TREND IMSS SMTP Service 7.1) id 57aba76000097843 ; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 12:02:59 +0530 Received: from BLRKECHUB09.ad.infosys.com (10.66.236.139) by blrkechub03.ad.infosys.com (10.66.236.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 12:08:32 +0530 Received: from BLRKECMBX13.ad.infosys.com ([fe80::c43d:ba67:abc0:11c3]) by Blrkechub09.ad.infosys.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 12:08:51 +0530 From: Bharat Joshi To: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" , "Rishabh Parekh (riparekh)" , "pim@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [pim] Adoption of draft-zzp-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-00.txt as a pim wg work item Thread-Index: AQHOBMLoirMHqFVDP02sYuvNcaNImZh1wN60gAu3wACACL+9KQ== Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 06:38:48 +0000 Message-ID: <35347FBF2796F94E936EE76C0E6047ED32E0A0F3@BLRKECMBX13.ad.infosys.com> References: <5112E923.4040709@venaas.com> <35347FBF2796F94E936EE76C0E6047ED32E076B9@BLRKECMBX13.ad.infosys.com>, <0BF0FCC78340F147BE76A6F5762318A82284459D@BY2PRD0510MB389.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> In-Reply-To: <0BF0FCC78340F147BE76A6F5762318A82284459D@BY2PRD0510MB389.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.200.132] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [pim] Adoption of draft-zzp-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-00.txt as a pim wg work item 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, 25 Feb 2013 06:39:21 -0000 Jeffrey, I have got one more question. I was reading through RFC 2715 ( Interoperability Rules for Multicast= Routing Protocols ). I understand that as per this survey, no vendor is us= ing ( *,*, RP) functionality from PIM-SM and only one implementation of the= same exist. Because of this, we might remove this functionality from PIM-S= M spec. If we end up removing this functionality from PIM-SM spec then how wi= ll another multicast routing protocol will interact with a PIM-SM border ro= uter? For example: a domain has a stub network that runs PIM-DM internally = but wants to receive traffic from external sources and the domain speaks PI= M-SM. Regards, Bharat ________________________________________ From: pim-bounces@ietf.org [pim-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of Jeffrey (Zha= ohui) Zhang [zzhang@juniper.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 3:49 AM To: Rishabh Parekh (riparekh); pim@ietf.org Subject: Re: [pim] Adoption of draft-zzp-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-0= 0.txt as a pim wg work item Rishabh, > Two operator have deployed Anycast-RP using MSDP and three operators > deploy both MSDP and PIM-SM Anycast-RP. > > In the second case, what was MSDP used for? Is it that one is w/o MSDP and the other is w/ MSDP? > 5. In section 2.2.3, "The number of Sparse-Mode RPs deployed", I am not > sure what we mean by 'Sparse-Mode RPs'. Is this term defined somewhere > else? Should we remove the "Sparse-Mode"? Is there a need to emphasize it is not = Bidir RP? Thanks. Jeffrey > -----Original Message----- > From: pim-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pim-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Bharat Joshi > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 1:11 AM > To: pim@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [pim] Adoption of draft-zzp-pim-rfc4601-update-survey- > report-00.txt as a pim wg work item > > Hi, > > I support adoption of this draft. I have few > questions/suggestions as mentioned below. > > Regards, > Bharat > > Questions/Suggestions: > > 1. In abstract: > > This document provides supporting documentation to advance the > Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) routing > protocol from IETF Proposed Standard to Internet Standard > > Should we use the term 'multicast routing protocol' instead of just > 'routing protocol'? > > 2. If we decide to change the above, there are some other places where > we use 'routing protocol' so please review the same and see if we want > to change them as well. > > 3. In section 2.2.2, Small typo in " deployments ofeither " > > 4. In section 2.2.2, "or Pim Multicast Border" -> "or PIM Multicast > Border" > > 5. In section 2.2.3, "The number of Sparse-Mode RPs deployed", I am not > sure what we mean by 'Sparse-Mode RPs'. Is this term defined somewhere > else? > > 6. In section 2.2.3, I did not get the difference of the two in the > following sentence: > > Two operator have deployed Anycast-RP using MSDP and three operators > deploy both MSDP and PIM-SM Anycast-RP. > > In the second case, what was MSDP used for? > > 7. In section 2.3.1, can we rework the following sentence a little: > > Four vendors have reported implementations based on [RFC4601] and two > have implemented PIM Sparse-Mode based on [RFC2362] > > to something like: > > Four vendors have PIM Sparse-Mode implementations based on [RFC4601]. > Two vendors > have PIM Sparse-Mode implementations based on [RFC2362]. > > ________________________________________ > From: pim-bounces@ietf.org [pim-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of Stig > Venaas [stig@venaas.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 5:07 AM > To: pim@ietf.org > Subject: [pim] Adoption of draft-zzp-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report- > 00.txt as a pim wg work item > > As we've decided long ago in the wg, we need to address the 4601 errata > and we want to progress 4601 on standards track. As part of this we > need > to have an implementation report. We did a survey and the results are > collected in > > draft-zzp-pim-rfc4601-update-survey-report-00.txt > > I think it makes sense to work towards publishing the survey results as > an RFC. We did this with e.g. RFC 4601. See RFC 4602. If we want to > publish the report as an RFC, then I think we should first adopt it as > a WG work item, and do the usual WG process to make sure it is in the > shape we want it to be before publication. > > This is an adoption call to see if we should adopt the survey report > at this stage. If you think it makes sense to have it as a WG item, and > it is of sufficient quality, then consider voting yes. If you believe > we > should not push this through as a WG item, or it is of insufficient > quality at this point, then you probably want to vote no. > > I hope this is sufficient background. So based on this, please respond > and state whether we should adopt this document as a WG item at this > point. > > Please respond by February 20th. > > Stig > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim > > **************** CAUTION - Disclaimer ***************** > This e-mail contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended > solely > for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, > please > notify the sender by e-mail and delete the original message. Further, > you are not > to copy, disclose, or distribute this e-mail or its contents to any > other person and > any such actions are unlawful. This e-mail may contain viruses. Infosys > has taken > every reasonable precaution to minimize this risk, but is not liable > for any damage > you may sustain as a result of any virus in this e-mail. You should > carry out your > own virus checks before opening the e-mail or attachment. Infosys > reserves the > right to monitor and review the content of all messages sent to or from > this e-mail > address. Messages sent to or from this e-mail address may be stored on > the > Infosys e-mail system. > ***INFOSYS******** End of Disclaimer ********INFOSYS*** > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim From asaeda@sfc.wide.ad.jp Mon Feb 25 02:42:56 2013 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 6C20221F8444 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 02:42:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uy2dCknf75ZO for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 02:42:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp [IPv6:2001:200:0:8803:203:178:142:146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A34A21F8440 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 02:42:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (unknown [202.249.37.10]) by mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CEA032780C8 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 19:42:46 +0900 (JST) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 19:42:47 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20130225.194247.124947514.asaeda@sfc.wide.ad.jp> To: pim@ietf.org From: Hitoshi Asaeda X-Mailer: Mew version 6.3 on Emacs 22.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [pim] multiple upstreams for igmp/mld proxy 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, 25 Feb 2013 10:42:56 -0000 Hi folks, I've submitted our revised draft of multiple upstream interface support for IGMP/MLD proxy. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-asaeda-pim-mldproxy-multif-01 I believe this revision improves a lot from the previous one. Please take a look at this and give us your comments. Thank you very much. Regards, -- Hitoshi Asaeda p.s. I'll inform this draft to homenet as well, to seek comments. From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Feb 25 07:54:33 2013 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 DAA7E21F945A; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 07:54:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.516 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.083, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QqUKV6pSvVT8; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 07:54:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55A1D21F947A; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 07:54:33 -0800 (PST) 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: 4.40 Message-ID: <20130225155433.6926.61249.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 07:54:33 -0800 Cc: pim@ietf.org Subject: [pim] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-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: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:54:34 -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 : IGMP/MLD-Based Explicit Membership Tracking Function for= Multicast Routers Author(s) : Hitoshi Asaeda Filename : draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-05.txt Pages : 10 Date : 2013-02-25 Abstract: This document describes the IGMP/MLD-based explicit membership tracking function for multicast routers supporting IGMPv3/MLDv2. The explicit tracking function contributes to saving network resources and fast leaves (i.e. shortening leave latency). The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-05 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-05 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From lmcm@tid.es Mon Feb 25 14:25:18 2013 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 4EE1221E80CA for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:25:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.913 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.913 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.686, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R3Zpp54uZxgf for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:25:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from correo-bck.tid.es (correo-bck.tid.es [195.235.93.200]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 644E121F8FB2 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:25:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from sbrightmailg02.hi.inet (Sbrightmailg02.hi.inet [10.95.78.105]) by tid.hi.inet (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0MIS00IL4RM1VS@tid.hi.inet> for pim@ietf.org; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:25:13 +0100 (MET) Received: from vanvan (vanvan.hi.inet [10.95.78.49]) by sbrightmailg02.hi.inet (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id A6.7F.05051.8C4EB215; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:25:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from correo.tid.es (mailhost.hi.inet [10.95.64.100]) by tid.hi.inet (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPS id <0MIS00IKZRM0VS@tid.hi.inet> for pim@ietf.org; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:25:12 +0100 (MET) Received: from EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet ([169.254.2.165]) by EX10-HTCAS7-MAD.hi.inet ([fe80::4ccc:bab7:84dc:7c6e%15]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:25:12 +0100 Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:25:11 +0000 From: LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO In-reply-to: <20130225142639.13979.26353.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Originating-IP: [10.95.64.115] To: "pim@ietf.org" Message-id: <823234EF5C7C334998D973D822FF801B315A8AF7@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-language: es-ES Content-transfer-encoding: base64 Accept-Language: es-ES, en-US Thread-topic: New Version Notification for draft-contreras-multimob-multiple-upstreams-01.txt Thread-index: AQHOE2QgGvLbYqrm4Eu2t0i16e4FWpiLJpUw X-AuditID: 0a5f4e69-b7fbe6d0000013bb-bc-512be4c87e95 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrLLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsXCFe9nqHvyiXagwYurTBZfHt5kdmD0WLLk J1MAYxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXRvum+0wFL6Qq1v5Yx9jAOEGqi5GTQ0LAROLxwfMsELaYxIV7 69m6GLk4hAS2MUo03J7DBOF8Y5ToONfGAuFsYpTYPnkfWAuLgKrEodlHwGw2AUOJWTsnsYLY wgJxEusmLgeKc3BwCjhJLO50g9igIPHn3GOwchEBRYn2uS2sIDOZBXoYJW5/P8kMkuAV8JbY 0fWOFcIWlPgx+R7YHGYBdYkpU3JBwswC4hJzfk1khbAVJaYtamAEsRkFZCVWnj/NCDE/XuLx 7JesELaRxP6ZH5ghbhCQWLLnPJQtKvHy8T+wGiEBR4nzH24wTWAUn4Vk8yyEzbOQbJ6FZPMC RpZVjGLFSUWZ6RkluYmZOekGRnoZmXqZeaklmxghUZS5g3H5TpVDjAIcjEo8vBod2oFCrIll xZW5hxglOJiVRHg5M4BCvCmJlVWpRfnxRaU5qcWHGJk4OKUaGMP/TBdYfzL6sebZcq1Nk/Iv uM9wrlYr+8KW/db9RfSvxRMCZniU3W/y8/4n5hh3nGP5B21u1cSTzM9DZKKk+tnYtLfMqGe4 7yvAeYKHMUj32yqGL9anD2j8LWfUv29g8kl98bqj/BveaaxsYud5X/H1Qn5CQRvzMUuLP55v 2dWuxoXf/THjixJLcUaioRZzUXEiAOw98TuAAgAA References: <20130225142639.13979.26353.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Cc: "Zuniga, Juan Carlos \(JuanCarlos.Zuniga@InterDigital.com\)" Subject: [pim] RV: New Version Notification for draft-contreras-multimob-multiple-upstreams-01.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: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:25:18 -0000 RGVhciBhbGwsDQoNCldlIGhhdmUgc3VibWl0dGVkIGFuIHVwZGF0ZWQgdmVyc2lvbiBvZiBkcmFm dC1jb250cmVyYXMtbXVsdGltb2ItbXVsdGlwbGUtdXBzdHJlYW1zLg0KDQpUaGUgZG9jdW1lbnQg aW5jbHVkZXMgbm93IHNjZW5hcmlvcyBmaXhlZCBuZXR3b3JrIGNvbW11bmljYXRpb25zLCBhbmQg YW4gaW50cm9kdWN0b3J5IGFwcGVuZGl4IHRvIFBNSVB2NiBpbiBvcmRlciB0byBmYWNpbGl0YXRl IHRoZSB1bmRlcnN0YW5kaW5nIG9mIHRoZSBtb2JpbGUgY29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbiBjYXNlcy4NCg0K QW55IGNvbW1lbnQgaXMgd2VsY29tZWQsDQoNClRoYW5rcyBpbiBhZHZhbmNlLA0KDQpCZXN0IHJl Z2FyZHMsDQoNCkx1aXMNCg0KLS0tLS1NZW5zYWplIG9yaWdpbmFsLS0tLS0NCkRlOiBpbnRlcm5l dC1kcmFmdHNAaWV0Zi5vcmcgW21haWx0bzppbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHNAaWV0Zi5vcmddDQpFbnZp YWRvIGVsOiBsdW5lcywgMjUgZGUgZmVicmVybyBkZSAyMDEzIDE1OjI3DQpQYXJhOiBMVUlTIE1J R1VFTCBDT05UUkVSQVMgTVVSSUxMTw0KQ0M6IGp1YW5jYXJsb3MuenVuaWdhQGludGVyZGlnaXRh bC5jb207IGNqYmNAaXQudWMzbS5lcw0KQXN1bnRvOiBOZXcgVmVyc2lvbiBOb3RpZmljYXRpb24g Zm9yIGRyYWZ0LWNvbnRyZXJhcy1tdWx0aW1vYi1tdWx0aXBsZS11cHN0cmVhbXMtMDEudHh0DQoN Cg0KQSBuZXcgdmVyc2lvbiBvZiBJLUQsIGRyYWZ0LWNvbnRyZXJhcy1tdWx0aW1vYi1tdWx0aXBs ZS11cHN0cmVhbXMtMDEudHh0DQpoYXMgYmVlbiBzdWNjZXNzZnVsbHkgc3VibWl0dGVkIGJ5IEx1 aXMgTS4gQ29udHJlcmFzIGFuZCBwb3N0ZWQgdG8gdGhlIElFVEYgcmVwb3NpdG9yeS4NCg0KRmls ZW5hbWU6ICAgICAgICBkcmFmdC1jb250cmVyYXMtbXVsdGltb2ItbXVsdGlwbGUtdXBzdHJlYW1z DQpSZXZpc2lvbjogICAgICAgIDAxDQpUaXRsZTogICAgICAgICAgIEV4dGVuc2lvbiBvZiB0aGUg TUxEIHByb3h5IGZ1bmN0aW9uYWxpdHkgdG8gc3VwcG9ydCBtdWx0aXBsZSB1cHN0cmVhbSBpbnRl cmZhY2VzDQpDcmVhdGlvbiBkYXRlOiAgIDIwMTMtMDItMjUNCkdyb3VwOiAgICAgICAgICAgSW5k aXZpZHVhbCBTdWJtaXNzaW9uDQpOdW1iZXIgb2YgcGFnZXM6IDIxDQpVUkw6ICAgICAgICAgICAg IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzL2RyYWZ0LWNvbnRyZXJhcy1tdWx0 aW1vYi1tdWx0aXBsZS11cHN0cmVhbXMtMDEudHh0DQpTdGF0dXM6ICAgICAgICAgIGh0dHA6Ly9k YXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvZHJhZnQtY29udHJlcmFzLW11bHRpbW9iLW11bHRpcGxl LXVwc3RyZWFtcw0KSHRtbGl6ZWQ6ICAgICAgICBodHRwOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9k cmFmdC1jb250cmVyYXMtbXVsdGltb2ItbXVsdGlwbGUtdXBzdHJlYW1zLTAxDQpEaWZmOiAgICAg ICAgICAgIGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvcmZjZGlmZj91cmwyPWRyYWZ0LWNvbnRyZXJhcy1t dWx0aW1vYi1tdWx0aXBsZS11cHN0cmVhbXMtMDENCg0KQWJzdHJhY3Q6DQogICBUaGlzIGRvY3Vt ZW50IHByZXNlbnRzIGRpZmZlcmVudCBzY2VuYXJpb3Mgb2YgYXBwbGljYWJpbGl0eSBmb3IgYW4N CiAgIE1MRCBwcm94eSBydW5uaW5nIG1vcmUgdGhhbiBvbmUgdXBzdHJlYW0gaW50ZXJmYWNlLiBT aW5jZSB0aG9zZQ0KICAgc2NlbmFyaW9zIGltcG9zZSBkaWZmZXJlbnQgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIG9u IHRoZSBNTEQgcHJveHkgd2l0aA0KICAgbXVsdGlwbGUgdXBzdHJlYW0gaW50ZXJmYWNlcywgaXQg aXMgaW1wb3J0YW50IHRvIGVuc3VyZSB0aGF0IHRoZQ0KICAgcHJveHkgZnVuY3Rpb25hbGl0eSBh ZGRyZXNzZXMgYWxsIG9mIHRoZW0gZm9yIGNvbXBhdGliaWxpdHkuDQoNCiAgIFRoZSBwdXJwb3Nl IG9mIHRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQgaXMgdG8gZGVmaW5lIHRoZSByZXF1aXJlbWVudHMgaW4gYW4gTUxE DQogICBwcm94eSB3aXRoIG11bHRpcGxlIGludGVyZmFjZXMgY292ZXJpbmcgYSB2YXJpZXR5IG9m IGFwcGxpY2FiaWxpdHkNCiAgIHNjZW5hcmlvcywgYW5kIHRvIHNwZWNpZnkgdGhlIHByb3h5IGZ1 bmN0aW9uYWxpdHkgdG8gc2F0aXNmeSBhbGwgb2YNCiAgIHRoZW0uDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KVGhlIElF VEYgU2VjcmV0YXJpYXQNCg0KDQpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KDQpF c3RlIG1lbnNhamUgc2UgZGlyaWdlIGV4Y2x1c2l2YW1lbnRlIGEgc3UgZGVzdGluYXRhcmlvLiBQ dWVkZSBjb25zdWx0YXIgbnVlc3RyYSBwb2zDrXRpY2EgZGUgZW52w61vIHkgcmVjZXBjacOzbiBk ZSBjb3JyZW8gZWxlY3Ryw7NuaWNvIGVuIGVsIGVubGFjZSBzaXR1YWRvIG3DoXMgYWJham8uDQpU aGlzIG1lc3NhZ2UgaXMgaW50ZW5kZWQgZXhjbHVzaXZlbHkgZm9yIGl0cyBhZGRyZXNzZWUuIFdl IG9ubHkgc2VuZCBhbmQgcmVjZWl2ZSBlbWFpbCBvbiB0aGUgYmFzaXMgb2YgdGhlIHRlcm1zIHNl dCBvdXQgYXQ6DQpodHRwOi8vd3d3LnRpZC5lcy9FUy9QQUdJTkFTL2Rpc2NsYWltZXIuYXNweA0K From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Feb 25 15:07:35 2013 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 4AD5121E8128; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:07:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.534 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.534 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.065, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U-Q0vBOH8+w0; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:07:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCB6921E80E5; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:07:34 -0800 (PST) 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: 4.40 Message-ID: <20130225230734.30252.97310.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:07:34 -0800 Cc: pim@ietf.org Subject: [pim] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pim-drlb-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: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:07:35 -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 DR Load Balancing Author(s) : Yiqun Cai Sri Vallepalli Heidi Ou Andy Green Filename : draft-ietf-pim-drlb-02.txt Pages : 14 Date : 2013-02-25 Abstract: On a multi-access network such as an Ethernet, one of the PIM routers is elected as a Designated Router (DR). The PIM DR has two roles in the PIM protocol. On the first hop network, the PIM DR is responsible for registering an active source to the RP if the group is operated in PIM SM. On the last hop network, the PIM DR is responsible for tracking local multicast listeners and forwarding traffic to these listeners if the group is operated in PIM SM/SSM/DM. In this document, we propose a modification to the PIM protocol that allows more than one of these last hop routers to be selected so that the forwarding load can be distributed to and handled among these routers. A router responsible for forwarding for a particular group is called a Group Designated Router (GDR). The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-drlb There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pim-drlb-02 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-pim-drlb-02 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/