From ice@cisco.com Mon Jul 1 00:18:00 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 978C421F9057 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 00:18:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 7bZRzXpqQcTv for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 00:17:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFC4A21F992E for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 00:17:51 -0700 (PDT) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r617HhGE007042; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 09:17:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ams-iwijnand-8719.cisco.com (ams-iwijnand-8719.cisco.com [10.55.191.154]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r617Gl1T015413; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 09:17:02 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) From: IJsbrand Wijnands In-Reply-To: <35347FBF2796F94E936EE76C0E6047ED32E89922@BLRKECMBX13.ad.infosys.com> Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 09:16:47 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2E48AE1A-D874-4918-87EE-9C0547329260@cisco.com> References: , <35347FBF2796F94E936EE76C0E6047ED32E79439@BLRKECMBX13.ad.infosys.com>, <35347FBF2796F94E936EE76C0E6047ED32E89922@BLRKECMBX13.ad.infosys.com> To: Bharat Joshi X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Cc: Mike McBride , "pim@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [pim] WGLC on draft-ietf-pim-explicit-rpf-vector-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: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 07:18:00 -0000 Bharat, > Ice: We can change 'will' into 'may likely'. >=20 > : That may not solve the problem. My thinking is that we = should allow it to compare metrics as it is. If they are same, they will = anyway fallback on the other parameters like IP address. So why to add a = special case here? I'm calling this out because in 99% of the cases the Metric will be = zero. The draft does not say that Metric MUST not be used. If I change = to 'may likely', I think it solves the problem. >=20 >> =95 In section 9, "support the Explicit Vector MUST never" -> = "support the Explicit Vector attribute MUST never" >=20 > Ice: The draft is about documenting 'Explicit Vector' as a new PIM = attribute. Is it not obvious that if we talk about 'Explicit Vector', = this is an attribute? >=20 > : While I agree that it is obvious but my thinking is that it = is better to be consistent across. I suggested this because most of the = places this draft uses 'Attribute' as well. Ok. >> =95 Will things work if both Explicit RPF vector and normal RPF = vector attributes are available in a PIM join? Or should we say that = they cannot be used together? >=20 > Ice: Nothing prevents that. >=20 > : I think it is better to clarify this in the document. This = will help an implementor as well as a reader. Do you see an issue that needs to be clarified specific to this? >> =95 In security consideration, should not we also mention that = Explicit RPF Vector Attribute itself does not add any security = implications on PIM-SM functioning. >=20 > Ice: Does -01 not already address this? >=20 > : It is mentioned but not from this new attribute perspective, = please relook at that text. "RPF Vector" needs to be changed to "Explicit RPF Vector", is that what = you mean? Thx, Ice. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > **************** CAUTION - Disclaimer ***************** > This e-mail contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended = solely=20 > for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended = recipient, please=20 > notify the sender by e-mail and delete the original message. Further, = you are not=20 > to copy, disclose, or distribute this e-mail or its contents to any = other person and=20 > any such actions are unlawful. This e-mail may contain viruses. = Infosys has taken=20 > every reasonable precaution to minimize this risk, but is not liable = for any damage=20 > you may sustain as a result of any virus in this e-mail. You should = carry out your=20 > own virus checks before opening the e-mail or attachment. Infosys = reserves the=20 > right to monitor and review the content of all messages sent to or = from this e-mail=20 > address. Messages sent to or from this e-mail address may be stored on = the=20 > Infosys e-mail system. > ***INFOSYS******** End of Disclaimer ********INFOSYS*** >=20 From bharat_joshi@infosys.com Mon Jul 1 00:43:26 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 B23E021F8F15 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 00:43:25 -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 hRAs+bfmJwxK for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 00:43:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KECGATE03.infosys.com (kecgate03.infosys.com [122.98.10.31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDFFF21F8EC3 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 00:43:19 -0700 (PDT) X-TM-IMSS-Message-ID: <14277f6b00027f50@infosys.com> Received: from BLRKECHUB05.ad.infosys.com ([10.66.236.45]) by infosys.com ([122.98.10.31]) with ESMTP (TREND IMSS SMTP Service 7.1) id 14277f6b00027f50 ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 13:11:35 +0530 Received: from BLRKECHUB06.ad.infosys.com (10.66.236.116) by BLRKECHUB05.ad.infosys.com (10.66.236.45) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 13:12:51 +0530 Received: from BLRKECMBX13.ad.infosys.com ([fe80::c43d:ba67:abc0:11c3]) by BLRKECHUB06.ad.infosys.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 13:12:51 +0530 From: Bharat Joshi To: IJsbrand Wijnands Thread-Topic: [pim] WGLC on draft-ietf-pim-explicit-rpf-vector-00 Thread-Index: AQHOZmzCcLVgOtShME6OYjSowDCfT5lGCnmggAAdk0qABd6wgIADSU0A///cz4CAAGHNpw== Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 07:42:51 +0000 Message-ID: <35347FBF2796F94E936EE76C0E6047ED32E8998E@BLRKECMBX13.ad.infosys.com> References: , <35347FBF2796F94E936EE76C0E6047ED32E79439@BLRKECMBX13.ad.infosys.com>, <35347FBF2796F94E936EE76C0E6047ED32E89922@BLRKECMBX13.ad.infosys.com>, <2E48AE1A-D874-4918-87EE-9C0547329260@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <2E48AE1A-D874-4918-87EE-9C0547329260@cisco.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="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Mike McBride , "pim@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [pim] WGLC on draft-ietf-pim-explicit-rpf-vector-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: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 07:43:26 -0000 Hi, Few replies in line with . Regards, Bharat > Ice: We can change 'will' into 'may likely'. > > : That may not solve the problem. My thinking is that we should= allow it to compare metrics as it is. If they are same, they will anyway= fallback on the other parameters like IP address. So why to add a specia= l case here? I'm calling this out because in 99% of the cases the Metric will be zero.= The draft does not say that Metric MUST not be used. If I change to 'may= likely', I think it solves the problem. : Ok. >> =95 Will things work if both Explicit RPF vector and normal RPF vector= attributes are available in a PIM join? Or should we say that they canno= t be used together? > > Ice: Nothing prevents that. > > : I think it is better to clarify this in the document. This wi= ll help an implementor as well as a reader. Do you see an issue that needs to be clarified specific to this? : I think there is a need simply because there are multiple join = attributes. As this new join attribute does not put any restriction on ho= w the multiple join attributes are used, I think it will be good to add s= ome text on this. >> =95 In security consideration, should not we also mention that Explici= t RPF Vector Attribute itself does not add any security implications on P= IM-SM functioning. > > Ice: Does -01 not already address this? > > : It is mentioned but not from this new attribute perspective, = please relook at that text. "RPF Vector" needs to be changed to "Explicit RPF Vector", is that what y= ou mean? : What I was trying to say is that we should add some text which = reflects that adding a new join attribute does not add any new security i= ssues for PIM. But if you think that current one is sufficient so let us = stick to that till the IESG suggest something. **************** 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 ice@cisco.com Mon Jul 1 00:54:55 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 A977221F9CF8 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 00:54:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.266 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.266 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.333, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 dULd7r58WS3J for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 00:54:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75FAD21F9ADC for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 00:54:49 -0700 (PDT) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r617sbos011746; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 09:54:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ams-iwijnand-8719.cisco.com (ams-iwijnand-8719.cisco.com [10.55.191.154]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r617ru4K023868; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 09:54:11 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) From: IJsbrand Wijnands In-Reply-To: <35347FBF2796F94E936EE76C0E6047ED32E8998E@BLRKECMBX13.ad.infosys.com> Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 09:53:55 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4957F401-4B87-4969-B939-E47091B16176@cisco.com> References: , <35347FBF2796F94E936EE76C0E6047ED32E79439@BLRKECMBX13.ad.infosys.com>, <35347FBF2796F94E936EE76C0E6047ED32E89922@BLRKECMBX13.ad.infosys.com>, <2E48AE1A-D874-4918-87EE-9C0547329260@cisco.com> <35347FBF2796F94E936EE76C0E6047ED32E8998E@BLRKECMBX13.ad.infosys.com> To: Bharat Joshi X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Cc: Mike McBride , "pim@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [pim] WGLC on draft-ietf-pim-explicit-rpf-vector-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: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 07:54:55 -0000 Bharat, > Do you see an issue that needs to be clarified specific to this? >=20 > : I think there is a need simply because there are multiple = join attributes. As this new join attribute does not put any restriction = on how the multiple join attributes are used, I think it will be good to = add some text on this. Ok, we can do that. >>> =95 In security consideration, should not we also mention that = Explicit RPF Vector Attribute itself does not add any security = implications on PIM-SM functioning. >>=20 >> Ice: Does -01 not already address this? >>=20 >> : It is mentioned but not from this new attribute = perspective, please relook at that text. >=20 > "RPF Vector" needs to be changed to "Explicit RPF Vector", is that = what you mean? >=20 > : What I was trying to say is that we should add some text = which reflects that adding a new join attribute does not add any new = security issues for PIM. But if you think that current one is sufficient = so let us stick to that till the IESG suggest something. I don't think it needs to say more then RFC 5496 already does. Thx, Ice. From bharat_joshi@infosys.com Wed Jul 3 07:34:13 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 4BE1111E81C7 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 07:34:13 -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 9I8RrYdK2Hko for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 07:34:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KECGATE03.infosys.com (kecgate03.infosys.com [122.98.10.31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F94811E81C4 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 07:34:07 -0700 (PDT) X-TM-IMSS-Message-ID: <1fec45fd00056c18@infosys.com> Received: from BLRKECHUB05.ad.infosys.com ([10.66.236.45]) by infosys.com ([122.98.10.31]) with ESMTP (TREND IMSS SMTP Service 7.1) id 1fec45fd00056c18 ; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 20:02:20 +0530 Received: from BLRKECHUB08.ad.infosys.com (10.66.236.138) by BLRKECHUB05.ad.infosys.com (10.66.236.45) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 20:03:32 +0530 Received: from BLRKECMBX12.ad.infosys.com ([fe80::a0dd:c35f:79ad:4993]) by BLRKECHUB08.ad.infosys.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 20:03:32 +0530 From: Bharat Joshi To: "pim@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Supporting multiple upstream interface in IGMP/MLD proxy Thread-Index: Ac53+kq9XnMmV+mWSsWtieEya4tx7Q== Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 14:33:32 +0000 Message-ID: <35347FBF2796F94E936EE76C0E6047ED32E929F9@BLRKECMBX12.ad.infosys.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.37.13] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [pim] Supporting multiple upstream interface in 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: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 14:34:13 -0000 Hi, I was going through the drafts submitted to PIM working group and ca= me across two drafts that propose the solution to support multiple upstre= am interface in IGMP/MLD proxy. I have couple of question on this: 1. Something similar already exist and being used by the operators. Are w= e trying to standardize this? 2. As this is device specific, won't a simple configuration is enough? Th= e configuration could be vendor specific as there is no protocol interact= ion required. As far as I know, this is exactly what some of the vendors = that implement this, used. Regards, Bharat **************** 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 eckert@cisco.com Wed Jul 3 07:50:52 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 788CD11E81C3 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 07:50:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] 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 bNG7TXNFv7zF for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 07:50:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtv-iport-1.cisco.com (mtv-iport-1.cisco.com [173.36.130.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1282B11E81B7 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 07:50:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1975; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1372863048; x=1374072648; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=mSRpEg7AfOTDkwHdiCEgvzbSGB2AXi/C6oPof8TAtds=; b=Nh7FCi6e2ZqJ9hb4NsOg0Zx45sRpJzDQsYBILQ5hM3rrTG1sQKQrgrqG 8UEk2XvTeHHG5n4BIyWJEU8duuKkjocoVvKTMO8s5GxLQ9qurnCrOmHMs I0LjMRHHja6ozw4C3hC7PbWJJITWlmhNyw2tsgQk/X32vnV42KMDaPPq7 c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjAFALU51FGrRDoH/2dsb2JhbABagwkywHuBAxZ0giMBAQEEAQEBNzQLEAsSBgklDwUTIhQTG4dzDbsCBI45gTIHg20DiSOOJQGRRYMxHIE1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,988,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="82106021" Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Jul 2013 14:50:47 +0000 Received: from mcast-linux1.cisco.com (mcast-linux1.cisco.com [172.27.244.121]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r63EokCh028834 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 3 Jul 2013 14:50:46 GMT Received: from mcast-linux1.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by mcast-linux1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r63EokXF001305; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 07:50:46 -0700 Received: (from eckert@localhost) by mcast-linux1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id r63Eokq1001303; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 07:50:46 -0700 Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 07:50:46 -0700 From: Toerless Eckert To: Bharat Joshi Message-ID: <20130703145046.GW17405@cisco.com> References: <35347FBF2796F94E936EE76C0E6047ED32E929F9@BLRKECMBX12.ad.infosys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <35347FBF2796F94E936EE76C0E6047ED32E929F9@BLRKECMBX12.ad.infosys.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Cc: "pim@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [pim] Supporting multiple upstream interface in 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: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 14:50:52 -0000 Draft names ? On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 02:33:32PM +0000, Bharat Joshi wrote: > Hi, > > I was going through the drafts submitted to PIM working group and came across two drafts that propose the solution to support multiple upstream interface in IGMP/MLD proxy. > > I have couple of question on this: > > 1. Something similar already exist and being used by the operators. Are we trying to standardize this? > > 2. As this is device specific, won't a simple configuration is enough? The configuration could be vendor specific as there is no protocol interaction required. As far as I know, this is exactly what some of the vendors that implement this, used. > > Regards, > Bharat > > **************** 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 -- --- Toerless Eckert, eckert@cisco.com Cisco NSSTG Systems & Technology Architecture SDN: Let me play with the network, mommy! From bharat_joshi@infosys.com Wed Jul 3 08:47:36 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 803E821F9CE8 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 08:47:36 -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 S1DKMuUrrY2T for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 08:47:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KECGATE03.infosys.com (kecgate03.infosysconsulting.com [122.98.10.31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A65A821F9CF2 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 08:47:31 -0700 (PDT) X-TM-IMSS-Message-ID: <202f95bd00057a4e@infosys.com> Received: from BLRKECHUB05.ad.infosys.com ([10.66.236.45]) by infosys.com ([122.98.10.31]) with ESMTP (TREND IMSS SMTP Service 7.1) id 202f95bd00057a4e ; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 21:15:51 +0530 Received: from BLRKECHUB09.ad.infosys.com (10.66.236.119) by BLRKECHUB05.ad.infosys.com (10.66.236.45) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 21:17:03 +0530 Received: from BLRKECMBX12.ad.infosys.com ([fe80::a0dd:c35f:79ad:4993]) by Blrkechub09.ad.infosys.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 21:17:03 +0530 From: Bharat Joshi To: Toerless Eckert Thread-Topic: [pim] Supporting multiple upstream interface in IGMP/MLD proxy Thread-Index: Ac53+kq9XnMmV+mWSsWtieEya4tx7f//qJ0AgABruPY= Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 15:47:02 +0000 Message-ID: <35347FBF2796F94E936EE76C0E6047ED32E92A65@BLRKECMBX12.ad.infosys.com> References: <35347FBF2796F94E936EE76C0E6047ED32E929F9@BLRKECMBX12.ad.infosys.com>, <20130703145046.GW17405@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <20130703145046.GW17405@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.37.13] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "pim@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [pim] Supporting multiple upstream interface in 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: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 15:47:36 -0000 Here are the two: draft-asaeda-pim-mldproxy-multif-01 - http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft= -asaeda-pim-mldproxy-multif/ draft-zhang-pim-muiimp-00 - http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhang-pim= -muiimp/ Thanks, Bharat ________________________________________ From: Toerless Eckert [eckert@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 8:20 PM To: Bharat Joshi Cc: pim@ietf.org Subject: Re: [pim] Supporting multiple upstream interface in IGMP/MLD proxy Draft names ? On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 02:33:32PM +0000, Bharat Joshi wrote: > Hi, > > I was going through the drafts submitted to PIM working group and ca= me across two drafts that propose the solution to support multiple upstream= interface in IGMP/MLD proxy. > > I have couple of question on this: > > 1. Something similar already exist and being used by the operators. Are w= e trying to standardize this? > > 2. As this is device specific, won't a simple configuration is enough? Th= e configuration could be vendor specific as there is no protocol interactio= n required. As far as I know, this is exactly what some of the vendors that= implement this, used. > > Regards, > Bharat > > **************** 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*** > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim -- --- Toerless Eckert, eckert@cisco.com Cisco NSSTG Systems & Technology Architecture SDN: Let me play with the network, mommy! From lmcm@tid.es Wed Jul 3 09:05:49 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 9429521F9C91 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 09:05:49 -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 8pQYZqCfSFgf for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 09:05:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from correo-bck.tid.es (correo-bck.tid.es [195.235.93.200]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FA0521F9CA7 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 09:05:45 -0700 (PDT) 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 <0MPD0026NBDJ3K@tid.hi.inet> for pim@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Jul 2013 18:05:43 +0200 (MEST) Received: from vanvan (vanvan.hi.inet [10.95.78.49]) by sbrightmailg02.hi.inet (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id A5.67.02911.7DB44D15; Wed, 03 Jul 2013 18:05:43 +0200 (CEST) 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 <0MPD0026HBDJ3K@tid.hi.inet> for pim@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Jul 2013 18:05:43 +0200 (MEST) Received: from EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet ([169.254.2.38]) by EX10-HTCAS7-MAD.hi.inet ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0342.003; Wed, 03 Jul 2013 18:05:43 +0200 Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 16:05:42 +0000 From: LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO In-reply-to: <35347FBF2796F94E936EE76C0E6047ED32E92A65@BLRKECMBX12.ad.infosys.com> X-Originating-IP: [10.95.64.115] To: Bharat Joshi , Toerless Eckert Message-id: <823234EF5C7C334998D973D822FF801B44F89454@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-language: es-ES Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Accept-Language: es-ES, en-US Thread-topic: [pim] Supporting multiple upstream interface in IGMP/MLD proxy Thread-index: Ac53+kq9XnMmV+mWSsWtieEya4tx7f//40kAgAAPuQD//9pD4A== X-AuditID: 0a5f4e69-b7f118e000000b5f-e1-51d44bd7d735 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrLLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsXCFe9nqHvd+0qgwYz1ehZfHt5kdmD0WLLk J1MAYxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxvL/QgWPpCturl/F1sD4R6yLkZNDQsBE4tC3iWwQtpjEhXvr gWwuDiGB7YwSlzZ9ZoFwvjNKbFqyD8qZxijx6MMkJpAWFgFViUmdd8FsNgFDiVk7J7GC2MIC 3hK9r76BjeUUCJE4tOwcK8QKBYk/5x6zgNgiAv4SMy+9ZwSxmQUUJT79/Qhkc3DwAvVOWBkI EuYVEJT4MfkeC0SJjkTv92/MELa4xJxfE1khbG2JJ+8ugNmMArISK8+fZoQY7yPRN3UZE4Tt JPFr0gJmiBMEJJbsOQ9li0q8fPwPrFdI4ACjxNZj6hMYxWchWT0LyepZSFbPQrJ6ASPLKkax 4qSizPSMktzEzJx0AyO9jEy9zLzUkk2MkCjK3MG4fKfKIUYBDkYlHl4JqyuBQqyJZcWVuYcY JTiYlUR4rS2BQrwpiZVVqUX58UWlOanFhxiZODilGhhXCvu/4U2rsvIonlfeJO3EdFx9ct/S yPKwa5Lel633fHaYbjZxSgJj1YyqzzfOvLRWesTUs8XVtk+2+dqk0h0cvY7PO1p0/k29e0dG NvLMVbdtMwXFHe9M5TpwjKO6Zvea+OsNVxJXbpa7ofzyzwbPd3qRsUv7JFf9r2XZ41tjM6fA /upJtkNKLMUZiYZazEXFiQAbxTIZgAIAAA== References: <35347FBF2796F94E936EE76C0E6047ED32E929F9@BLRKECMBX12.ad.infosys.com> <20130703145046.GW17405@cisco.com> <35347FBF2796F94E936EE76C0E6047ED32E92A65@BLRKECMBX12.ad.infosys.com> Cc: "pim@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [pim] Supporting multiple upstream interface in 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: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 16:05:49 -0000 Please, consider this draft as well (originally contributed to the Multimob= WG), as it has been already presented in PIM WG and will be submitted to P= IM WG for the Berlin meeting. http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-contreras-multimob-multiple-upstreams= / Best regards, Luis -----Mensaje original----- De: pim-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pim-bounces@ietf.org] En nombre de Bharat = Joshi Enviado el: mi=E9rcoles, 03 de julio de 2013 17:47 Para: Toerless Eckert CC: pim@ietf.org Asunto: Re: [pim] Supporting multiple upstream interface in IGMP/MLD proxy Here are the two: draft-asaeda-pim-mldproxy-multif-01 - http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft= -asaeda-pim-mldproxy-multif/ draft-zhang-pim-muiimp-00 - http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhang-pim= -muiimp/ Thanks, Bharat ________________________________________ From: Toerless Eckert [eckert@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 8:20 PM To: Bharat Joshi Cc: pim@ietf.org Subject: Re: [pim] Supporting multiple upstream interface in IGMP/MLD proxy Draft names ? On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 02:33:32PM +0000, Bharat Joshi wrote: > Hi, > > I was going through the drafts submitted to PIM working group and ca= me across two drafts that propose the solution to support multiple upstream= interface in IGMP/MLD proxy. > > I have couple of question on this: > > 1. Something similar already exist and being used by the operators. Are w= e trying to standardize this? > > 2. As this is device specific, won't a simple configuration is enough? Th= e configuration could be vendor specific as there is no protocol interactio= n required. As far as I know, this is exactly what some of the vendors that= implement this, used. > > Regards, > Bharat > > **************** 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 th= is 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 -- --- Toerless Eckert, eckert@cisco.com Cisco NSSTG Systems & Technology Architecture SDN: Let me play with the network, mommy! _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nu= estra pol=EDtica de env=EDo y recepci=F3n de correo electr=F3nico en el enl= ace situado m=E1s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and re= ceive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx From bharat_joshi@infosys.com Sun Jul 7 23:48:06 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 155EB11E8192 for ; Sun, 7 Jul 2013 23:48:06 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 azUr-aU-G3YV for ; Sun, 7 Jul 2013 23:48:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kecgate02.infosys.com (kecgate02.infosys.com [122.98.14.32]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35A5A11E8196 for ; Sun, 7 Jul 2013 23:47:59 -0700 (PDT) X-TM-IMSS-Message-ID: <3814f80800084ff5@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 3814f80800084ff5 ; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 12:16:04 +0530 Received: from BLRKECHUB08.ad.infosys.com (10.66.236.138) by blrkechub03.ad.infosys.com (10.66.236.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 12:17:48 +0530 Received: from BLRKECMBX13.ad.infosys.com ([fe80::c43d:ba67:abc0:11c3]) by BLRKECHUB08.ad.infosys.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 12:17:48 +0530 From: Bharat Joshi To: "pim@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Some questions on RFC 6754 Thread-Index: Ac57pw6kufldKKbTTPOD9BYl2kN3SQ== Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2013 06:47:47 +0000 Message-ID: <35347FBF2796F94E936EE76C0E6047ED32E9B75B@BLRKECMBX13.ad.infosys.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="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [pim] Some questions on RFC 6754 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, 08 Jul 2013 06:48:06 -0000 Hi, I was reading up RFC 6754 to understand the requirement and solutio= n proposed for ECMP routes handling and I have some basic questions. It w= ould be great if someone can asnwer them for me. Regards, Bharat =95 In section 1, in sentence: This document introduces the ECMP Redirect, a mechanism to improve the RP= F procedure over ECMP. I did not get what does the term 'RPF procedure over ECMP' actually = means? Can somebody please elaborate the same? =95 In section 1, in sentence: While implementations supporting ECMP have been deployed widely, the exis= ting RPF selection methods have weaknesses Should 'RPF selection' be 'Upstream PIM neighbor selection'? =95 In section 1, in sentence For example, there is no straightforward way to tell two downstream route= rs to select either the same or different RPF neighbor routers for the sa= me traffic flows. What are the conditions where downstream routers would want to choos= e two different RPF neighbors for the same traffic flows? I was thinking = that we need some method like a hash to make sure that all downstream rou= ter uses the same upstream neighbor so that only one router forwards traf= fic for a given channel. This will also avoid need for assert messages in= such scenarios. =95 In Overview, in sentence When the RPF neighbor router receives the Join message and finds that the= receiving interface is one of the ECMP interfaces, it will check if the = same flow is already being forwarded out of another ECMP interface. How does a upstream router figures out that the receiving interface = is one of the ECMP interfaces for the downstream router? Also, it is not clear how the upstream route can check if the same f= low is being forwarded out of another ECMP interfaces? Are these interfac= es pointing to the same LAN? Let me try to put a figure and ask this. +------+ +-----+ | R1 | | R2 | +------+ +-----+ | | +-----------------------------------+ | | +------+ +-----+ | R3 | | R4 | +------+ +-----+ In above configuration, how R1 would come to know if R3 has an ECMP route= for a source/RP through both R1 and R2? Also, if there is a flow already= exist through R2, how will R1 come that the flow is because of the ECMP = route in R3 and R4? Am I missing something here? =95 Its not clear how will the routers (R1 to R4) create ECMP bundle? Is = it that in this particular case, there will only be one interface in that= ECMP bundle? =95 It would have been great if a figure was used to describe the operati= ons. I know its my limitation as I am not able to understand the text cor= rectly. **************** 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 lmcm@tid.es Mon Jul 8 03:06:54 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 9796B11E81C1 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 03:06:54 -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=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 hQgSt38VxsdM for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 03:06:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from correo-bck.tid.es (correo-bck.tid.es [195.235.93.200]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6D6F21F90E4 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 03:06:49 -0700 (PDT) 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 <0MPM006XI43CB7@tid.hi.inet> for pim@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 12:06:48 +0200 (MEST) Received: from vanvan (vanvan.hi.inet [10.95.78.49]) by sbrightmailg02.hi.inet (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id B5.26.02911.73F8AD15; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 12:06:48 +0200 (CEST) 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 <0MPM006XD43BB7@tid.hi.inet> for pim@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 12:06:47 +0200 (MEST) Received: from EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet ([169.254.2.38]) by EX10-HTCAS8-MAD.hi.inet ([fe80::41c8:e965:8a6:de67%11]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Mon, 08 Jul 2013 12:06:47 +0200 Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 10:06:46 +0000 From: LUIS MIGUEL CONTRERAS MURILLO X-Originating-IP: [10.95.64.115] To: "pim@ietf.org" Message-id: <823234EF5C7C334998D973D822FF801B44F8AA7F@EX10-MB2-MAD.hi.inet> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_qlIYTW5PRFTINdaB1HpuTA)" Content-language: es-ES Accept-Language: es-ES, en-US Thread-topic: Draft submission on MLD with multiple upstreams Thread-index: Ac57wj++Ojz5O8lnQuOKZZwTmVmcjA== X-AuditID: 0a5f4e69-b7f118e000000b5f-28-51da8f379482 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrHLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsXCFe9nqGvRfyvQoOcts8WXhzeZHRg9liz5 yRTAGMVlk5Kak1mWWqRvl8CVcfOjdcEalYqJ/YeYGxjvy3cxcnJICJhI9B7YyA5hi0lcuLee rYuRi0NIYDujRN+8J8wQzndGiX3v29khnA2MEgf/LwBrYRFQldh7+wojiM0mYCgxa+ckVhBb WMBCounOBKixChJ/zj1mAbFFBBQl2ue2sIIMYhboYZS4/f0kM0iCV8BbYkHzfUYIW1Dix+R7 YA3MArkS/+ZeYYOwxSXm/JoItoBRQFZi5fnTQPUcQENtJQ6t8oWYryfR/nYH1F4BiSV7zjND 2KISLx//Y53AKDILyYZZSDbMQrIBwtaTuDF1ClRcW2LZwtfMELauxIx/h1iQxRcwsq9iFCtO KspMzyjJTczMSTcw0svI1MvMSy3ZxAiJo8wdjMt3qhxiFOBgVOLhffjkZqAQa2JZcWXuIUYJ DmYlEV5x1luBQrwpiZVVqUX58UWlOanFhxiZODilGhitr4VU6p74fX9WnX3+Ih3PuFPNi2NX P/qQ/HzXE6fy6W5O05yEjz2YU9f41J4hRn//7AyvGNfJPwI7l9dd/6rqdLz2G8c7V6XqyylL ozbqPBd4819hQoKEwjl1xcvhyzb9+m0snnbFqJ3jzBH/9KbE9dvO3zSpnim7fkm1HteXQ4cd LF61/dyhxFKckWioxVxUnAgA+rXNyYECAAA= Cc: "Zuniga, Juan Carlos \(JuanCarlos.Zuniga@InterDigital.com\)" Subject: [pim] Draft submission on MLD with multiple upstreams 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, 08 Jul 2013 10:06:54 -0000 --Boundary_(ID_qlIYTW5PRFTINdaB1HpuTA) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Dear all, This is to announce that the draft-contreras-pim-multiple-upstreams have be= en already submitted to the PIM WG as mentioned during the last IETF meetin= g in Orlando. This draft was originally submitted to the multimob WG but p= resented to the PIM WG as well during the last two IETF meetings. The draft can be found in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-contreras-= pim-multiple-upstreams/ Any comment is welcome. Best regards, Luis ________________________________ Luis M. Contreras Technology / Global CTO / Telef=F3nica Efficiency Projects / Telef=F3nica I+D Distrito Telef=F3nica, Edificio Sur 3, Planta 3 28050 Madrid Espa=F1a / Spain lmcm@tid.es ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nu= estra pol=EDtica de env=EDo y recepci=F3n de correo electr=F3nico en el enl= ace situado m=E1s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and re= ceive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx --Boundary_(ID_qlIYTW5PRFTINdaB1HpuTA) Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Dear all,

This is to announce that the draft-contreras-pim-mul= tiple-upstreams have been already submitted to the PIM WG as mentioned duri= ng the last IETF meeting in Orlando. This draft was originally submit= ted to the multimob WG but presented to the PIM WG as well during the last two IETF meetings.

The draft can be found in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-contreras-pim-multiple-upstreams/

Any comment is welcome.

Best regards,

Luis

________________________________

Luis M. Contreras

Technology / Global CTO / Telef=F3= nica

Efficiency Projects / Telef=F3nica= I+D

Distrito Telef=F3nica, Edificio Su= r 3, Planta 3

28050 Madrid

Espa=F1a / Spain

lmcm@tid.es