From adrian@olddog.co.uk Sat Feb 8 07:14:20 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51DCC1A0398 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 07:14:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.917 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.77] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UJiXU7GfzLbb for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 07:14:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC4971A0105 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 07:14:18 -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 s18FEHqW017362; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 15:14:17 GMT Received: from 950129200 (13.17.90.92.rev.sfr.net [92.90.17.13]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s18FEEtV017356 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 8 Feb 2014 15:14:16 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 15:14:11 -0000 Message-ID: <036601cf24e0$6d3c5b20$47b51160$@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: Ac8k4Gdh0E5yMQt+ThqCaqQ6EwcLRQ== Content-Language: en-gb Cc: pim-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: [pim] Experimental code points in Join Attributes registry X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 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: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 15:14:20 -0000 Hi, While discussing some stuff with another AD (young Brian Haberman, to be precise) we noticed that the Join Attributes registry (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pim-parameters/pim-parameters.xhtml#pim-paramet ers-2) has all 64 code points tagged "IETF review". It seemed to us that it would be very sensible to allocate 2 or 4 of the code points as Experimental to allow experiments to be carried out without needing early or permanent allocations. noting that the rate of consumption of code points in this registry has not been high. Alternatively, we could have a few marked as Private Use if that seems more consistent with the other registries. Thoughts? Thanks, Adrian From sami.biz.email@gmail.com Sat Feb 8 12:49:06 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0FD71A0565 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 12:49:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YalKTkGL_ApT for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 12:49:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-x233.google.com (mail-wi0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 924821A060B for ; Sat, 8 Feb 2014 12:49:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wi0-f179.google.com with SMTP id hn9so1775748wib.12 for ; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 12:49:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RcxUkT29zeKhy6GT8V4I2mu2gSrEm4BQhRl6f7aQa4I=; b=nFGdXmkGRYlFqev6sfpf7Rc6mdwGAqqYbqtyoCNcR0f3vpON6Ffu9aOcwAF9m92SSQ SLImsRrqowWPzc/+sN039HA+mWdD4pXVJpIZgtejG7nOUDj8muN5DhcgIdKPgTb7/LsE amttrkU0WYzOTIbcXY0gHktjk/aaC9pBqiXXCbhChtUCKEorZODa8+JOGUXaNFWt9LUS jEUwTTXOnAW3FKrmkletCrT9P58VXgVPRCDIe2xruFRgZeSRI6FOYIe3mKyq6L0cYxcO LL4/igZlnicxAdTx9nBd+m5xRWu8JgizerwLPak7ofDwnBqtNy2gQCxzF5/nBeIfRlNM wgLg== X-Received: by 10.180.12.233 with SMTP id b9mr4659092wic.8.1391892544592; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 12:49:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.3] ([178.253.59.141]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id h13sm21219179wjr.22.2014.02.08.12.49.02 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 08 Feb 2014 12:49:04 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52F697AA.8080506@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 00:16:34 +0330 From: saeed sami User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: adrian@olddog.co.uk References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: pim@ietf.org Subject: Re: [pim] [PIM] Experimental code points in Join Attributes registry X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 20:49:07 -0000 I do agree with allocating a few of the code points for being used without the need to early or permanent allocation. it will simplify the processes with regards to experiments .And also as suggested It may be more appropriate to mark the allocated code points as private use . Sincerely Saeed Sami On 02/08/2014 11:30 ب.ظ, pim-request@ietf.org wrote: > Send pim mailing list submissions to > pim@ietf.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > pim-request@ietf.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > pim-owner@ietf.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of pim digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Experimental code points in Join Attributes registry > (Adrian Farrel) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 15:14:11 -0000 > From: "Adrian Farrel" > To: > Cc: pim-chairs@tools.ietf.org > Subject: [pim] Experimental code points in Join Attributes registry > Message-ID: <036601cf24e0$6d3c5b20$47b51160$@olddog.co.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Hi, > > While discussing some stuff with another AD (young Brian Haberman, to be > precise) we noticed that the Join Attributes registry > (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pim-parameters/pim-parameters.xhtml#pim-paramet > ers-2) has all 64 code points tagged "IETF review". > > It seemed to us that it would be very sensible to allocate 2 or 4 of the code > points as Experimental to allow experiments to be carried out without needing > early or permanent allocations. noting that the rate of consumption of code > points in this registry has not been high. > > Alternatively, we could have a few marked as Private Use if that seems more > consistent with the other registries. > > Thoughts? > > Thanks, > Adrian > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim > > > ------------------------------ > > End of pim Digest, Vol 118, Issue 1 > *********************************** From william.atwood@concordia.ca Wed Feb 12 18:11:06 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AD981A00BF for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:11:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.383 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.383 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gF4Ij1T9HL9f for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:10:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from oldperseverance.encs.concordia.ca (oldperseverance.encs.concordia.ca [132.205.96.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 650C81A00BA for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:10:57 -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 s1D2AsD6006548 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 2014 21:10:55 -0500 Message-ID: <52FC29B5.7040801@concordia.ca> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 21:11:01 -0500 From: William Atwood Organization: Concordia University, Montreal User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pim@ietf.org References: <036601cf24e0$6d3c5b20$47b51160$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <036601cf24e0$6d3c5b20$47b51160$@olddog.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.58 on oldperseverance.encs.concordia.ca at 2014/02/12 21:10:55 EST Subject: Re: [pim] Experimental code points in Join Attributes registry X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 02:11:06 -0000 Looking at the entire registry: Reserved for private use 65001-65535 PIM-Hello Options 251-255 PIM Address Family Experimental 65532-65535 PORT Message Types 65532-65535 PORT Option Types Reserved (for extension of type space) 15 PIM Message Types Nothing assigned for flexibility PIM Join Attribute Types Encoded-Source Address Encoding Type Field I suggest that we should allocate 2 or 4 code points (out of 64) for the PIM Join Attribute Types and 4 code points (out of 256) for the Encoded-Source Address Encoding Type Field. I don't have a strong opinion on using "Experimental" vs "Private"; both have been used. However, probable use for both of these would seem to me more likely to be some form of experiment, rather than some widely-deployed special (private) use. So, I would vote for "Experimental". Bill On 08/02/2014 10:14 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi, > > While discussing some stuff with another AD (young Brian Haberman, to be > precise) we noticed that the Join Attributes registry > (http://www.iana.org/assignments/pim-parameters/pim-parameters.xhtml#pim-paramet > ers-2) has all 64 code points tagged "IETF review". > > It seemed to us that it would be very sensible to allocate 2 or 4 of the code > points as Experimental to allow experiments to be carried out without needing > early or permanent allocations. noting that the rate of consumption of code > points in this registry has not been high. > > Alternatively, we could have a few marked as Private Use if that seems more > consistent with the other registries. > > Thoughts? > > Thanks, > Adrian > > _______________________________________________ > 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 nobody Fri Feb 14 11:52:17 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 836881A02F7; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:52:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I_VF4rMXy7Ld; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:52:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBCD31A02B9; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:51:29 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.0.0.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140214195129.29861.43528.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:51:29 -0800 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/RyP4q0RrQrSN_5iM14kQY6UoQzE Cc: pim@ietf.org Subject: [pim] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pim-hierarchicaljoinattr-02.txt X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 19:52:11 -0000 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 : Hierarchical Join/Prune Attributes Authors : Stig Venaas Isidor Kouvelas Jesus Arango Filename : draft-ietf-pim-hierarchicaljoinattr-02.txt Pages : 7 Date : 2014-02-14 Abstract: This document defines a hierachical method of encoding Join attributes, providing a more efficient encoding when the same attribute values need to be specified for multiple sources in a PIM Join/Prune message. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-hierarchicaljoinattr/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pim-hierarchicaljoinattr-02 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pim-hierarchicaljoinattr-02 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Fri Feb 14 15:43:15 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2A861A050E; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:43:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KhHY5VoNCtov; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:43:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 180901A04C0; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:43:12 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.0.0.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140214234312.1461.75407.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:43:12 -0800 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/Ncu39lhbjELf6alBQDNBxLEEewc Cc: pim@ietf.org Subject: [pim] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pim-drlb-03.txt X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 23:43:14 -0000 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 : PIM Designated Router Load Balancing Authors : Yiqun Cai Sri Vallepalli Heidi Ou Andy Green Filename : draft-ietf-pim-drlb-03.txt Pages : 16 Date : 2014-02-14 Abstract: On a multi-access network, one of the PIM routers is elected as a Designated Router (DR). 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. In this document, we propose a modification to the PIM SM 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. 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-03 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pim-drlb-03 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Fri Feb 14 19:17:04 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 139DA1A004B; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 19:17:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.801 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, J_CHICKENPOX_36=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ubjmDiNPmmzW; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 19:17:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B99AC1A0041; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 19:16:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BBD63557; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 03:16:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 03:16:34 +0000 Received: from nkgeml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.36) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 03:16:55 +0000 Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.56]) by nkgeml405-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.36]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 11:16:47 +0800 From: Haoweiguo To: Lucy yong , "curtis@ipv6.occnc.com" Thread-Topic: [Isis-wg] solicit comments on draft-yong-isis-ext-4-distribution-tree Thread-Index: AQHPEtg9fglFuYgZ/Eigsgdq+PyYi5q10EZG Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 03:16:46 +0000 Message-ID: References: Your message of "Wed, 15 Jan 2014 22:54:16 +0000." <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D4531899E@dfweml702-chm.china.huawei.com> <201401160051.s0G0p0rI025722@maildrop2.v6ds.occnc.com>, <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D45319D42@dfweml702-chm.china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D45319D42@dfweml702-chm.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.135.22.248] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/f5G_1126Vy9nSEikd9bhv3be1Bk Cc: "isis-wg@ietf.org list" , "pim@ietf.org" Subject: [pim] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogW0lzaXMtd2ddIHNvbGljaXQgY29tbWVudHMgb24g?= =?gb2312?b?ZHJhZnQteW9uZy1pc2lzLWV4dC00LWRpc3RyaWJ1dGlvbi10cmVl?= X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 03:17:02 -0000 SW4gY2lzY28gQUNJIChBcHBsaWNhdGlvbiBjZW50cmljIGluZnJhc3RyYWN0dXJlKSBzb2x1dGlv biwgZGlzdHJpYnV0aW9uIHRyZWUgb2YgdW5kZXJsYXkgbmV0d29yayAgaXMgdXNlZCB0byBjYXJy eSBCVU0gdHJhZmZpYyBvZiBlVlhMQU4gb3ZlcmxheSBuZXR3b3JrLg0KSVMtSVMgZXh0ZW5zaW9u IGJhc2VkIGRpc3RyaWJ1dGlvbiB0cmVlIGVzdGFibGlzaG1lbnQgbWVjaGFuaXNtIGlzIHByb3Zp ZGVkLCBpdCBpcyBzaW1pbGFyIHRvIHRoZSBkaXNjcmlwdGlvbiBpbiB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0LiBObyBQ SU0obWFpbmx5IGJpZGlyLVBJTSkgaXMgbm90IHJlcXVpcmVkLCBvbmx5IG9uZSBwcm90b2NvbChJ Uy1JUykgaXMgcmVxdWlyZWQgdG8gY29udHJvbCB1bmljYXN0IGFuZCBtdWx0aWNhc3QNCmZvcndh cmRpbmcgZnVuY3Rpb24uIFRoZSB1bmRlcmxheSBuZXR3b3JrIGZhYnJpYyBpcyBncmVhdGx5IHNp bXBsaWZpZWQuDQp0aGFua3MNCndlaWd1bw0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fXw0Kt6K8/sjLOiBwaW0gW3BpbS1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnXSC0+rHtIEx1Y3kg eW9uZyBbbHVjeS55b25nQGh1YXdlaS5jb21dDQq3osvNyrG85DogMjAxNMTqMdTCMTfI1SAwOjA4 DQrK1bz+yMs6IGN1cnRpc0BpcHY2Lm9jY25jLmNvbQ0Ks63LzTogaXNpcy13Z0BpZXRmLm9yZyBs aXN0OyBwaW1AaWV0Zi5vcmcNCtb3zOI6IFJlOiBbcGltXSBbSXNpcy13Z10gc29saWNpdCBjb21t ZW50cyBvbiBkcmFmdC15b25nLWlzaXMtZXh0LTQtZGlzdHJpYnV0aW9uLXRyZWUNCg0KSGkgQ3Vy dGlzLA0KDQpUaGFuayB5b3UgZm9yIHRoZSBvYnNlcnZhdGlvbi4gSSBtb2RpZmllZCB0aGUgc3Vi amVjdC4NCg0KW3NuaXBdDQpGaXJzdCBnbGFuY2UgLSBmb3IgYmFja3dhcmQgY29tcGF0aWJpbGl0 eSBhIGNhcGFiaWxpdGllcyBpbmRpY2F0aW9uIHdvdWxkIGJlIG5pY2UgdG8gaGF2ZS4gIFdpdGhv dXQgdGhpcyBhIG5ldHdvcmsgd2l0aCBvbmUgaW5jYXBhYmxlIG5vZGUgY291bGQgc3VycHJpc2lu Z2x5IGZhaWwgdG8gd29yayBmb3IgcGFydCBvZiB0aGUgdG9wb2xvZ3kuICBXaXRoIGl0IHRoZSB0 cmVlcyBjYW4gYmUgYnVpbHQgYXJvdW5kIHN1Y2ggYSBub2RlLg0KW0x1Y3ldIGFncmVlZC4NCg0K QnVpbGRpbmcgdHVubmVscyBjb3VsZCBiZSBwb3NzaWJsZSBidXQgcmVxdWlyZSB0aGF0IGEgc3Bl Y2lhbCB0eXBlIG9mIGxpbmsgYmUgYWR2ZXJ0aXNlZCAobWF5YmUgYW4gTVBMUyBGQSB3b3VsZCBk byBpdCkuICBBcyB5b3Ugc3RhdGVkIGhvdyB0byBidWlsZCB0aGUgdHVubmVscyB3b3VsZCBiZSBv dXQgb2Ygc2NvcGUuDQoNCkkgcmVhbGx5IGhhdmUgbm90IHlldCBsb29rZWQgYXQgdGhpcyBjbG9z ZWx5Lg0KW0x1Y3ldIFBsZWFzZSB0YWtlIGEgbG9vayBhbmQgcHJvdmlkZSB5b3VyIGFkZGl0aW9u YWwgY29tbWVudHMgYW5kIHN1Z2dlc3Rpb25zLg0KDQpSZWdhcmRzLA0KTHVjeQ0KDQpDdXJ0aXMN Cl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQpwaW0gbWFp bGluZyBsaXN0DQpwaW1AaWV0Zi5vcmcNCmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlz dGluZm8vcGlt From nobody Sun Feb 16 07:04:32 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 129AA1A023A for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 07:04:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nfZTLOwzMpE2 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 07:04:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qg0-x22e.google.com (mail-qg0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F0441A0226 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 07:04:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id e89so3630815qgf.5 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 07:04:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=IsGhve0QBZ10/tFYswYIMMrtn2gf6Ll4NRs3sfPIy6o=; b=UxRklZwzzWsRvxmXP9wUAt0fBxeBDqUk4j9T/MGINWQ3BrgACyAHErAeC3+03Lcfpo OjFk5Jty45Uyp8XNK7uOEdMTfOjfJJwCERYQkLVDArLBvAM/QtoXYNHmQTHnmsiozlYN Tli9P3NxjVBiG1EO3V4NIIGZLn+vuc+3O69smUgXfctEzBazRAncGjzhcO/U63ydpwtk HabZqoAlixk8aQjMGUMYqpB4w5fqQAS1JysPWu/tP5Me23YIHR0Bao9nuu8s1w60Na/t iIpw45e4vp4Mvs4re1OERPUk4d/HziYynDEajpdkY5+T8jJIEeux7HZL073bBIhyGc6Y n6yg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.94.214 with SMTP id g80mr26901343qge.19.1392563066154; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 07:04:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.140.97.37 with HTTP; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 07:04:26 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 20:34:26 +0530 Message-ID: From: "iamredheart22 ." To: "pim@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a8a1ae2b55e04f2875ac8 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/SrzrVAHNMb1uKfDOEImUgRYspFI Subject: [pim] Question on mvrf X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 15:04:30 -0000 --001a113a8a1ae2b55e04f2875ac8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, Can there be a case where two customers belonging to different vrfs join the same group, say 225.1.1.1? And each of these customers have different sources sending different data for the group. I am asking if one multicast address is sold to one customer only. Thanks, Indranil --001a113a8a1ae2b55e04f2875ac8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,

=A0=A0=A0 Can there be a case w= here two customers belonging to different vrfs join the same group, say 225= .1.1.1? And each of these customers have different sources sending differen= t data for the group. I am asking if one multicast address is sold to one c= ustomer only.

Thanks,
Indranil
--001a113a8a1ae2b55e04f2875ac8-- From nobody Mon Feb 17 11:35:23 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0966A1A021A for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:35:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a8jnyNfPHBe2 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:35:19 -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 7D9F31A0246 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:35:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2001:420:301:1004:f563:97b0:7935:584c] (unknown [IPv6:2001:420:301:1004:f563:97b0:7935:584c]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 05B9A80B0 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 20:35:15 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <53026471.5020402@venaas.com> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:35:13 -0800 From: Stig Venaas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "pim@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/S6HVw-bpZh_1hxFnWUguSJcVAxQ Subject: [pim] Request for London agenda items X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: "pim-chairs@tools.ietf.org" List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 19:35:22 -0000 If you would like a slot on the pim agenda for London, 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 nobody Tue Feb 18 00:39:19 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 220751A0448 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 00:39:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i5Mo9UpDOpRz for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 00:39:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qa0-x22b.google.com (mail-qa0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 531841A009E for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 00:39:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id o15so23001704qap.16 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 00:39:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=pzwf63qt3G0ufyCxDHYnnJDEje79KW0s5XzCeRV76yY=; b=psZl3OQ24S+sJMZfJrC6vO+rMGCF36UVAsliWnsIWHEgL3vwlqBGYnkMid8Rk6Dwdy C9zL777k65ttiIjmZjV8n5IoL8JStTFPkHvz1a1H0aUNWUYfUQ+XRJsgKqtO++FP9G0B Z8VCvAiA/xDSsWIgG8Lw7LBd9RGC1u3h2FR1JboMSKrXjJPGOv5FNACCF2RTiV5NNgWu rKJs5LvyTAJGV4zSSHRvZ042JWEeQF24+aW2y51QxNx54B1+Su79G7/n35nDl5vem2ZX /nspBdXBma8XkvIpEq4aFSwEGV5tmzIx95F9V5bdVH8aOm49MFTiJfy6ZMcGtuOnaF5W l+RQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.229.84.198 with SMTP id k6mr379835qcl.20.1392712753415; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 00:39:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.140.97.37 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 00:39:13 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 14:09:13 +0530 Message-ID: From: "iamredheart22 ." To: "pim@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134541af128a104f2aa3454 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/pD-WU7EOIszBjFECfI03g8G1IGM Subject: [pim] Fwd: Question on mvrf X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 08:39:18 -0000 --001a1134541af128a104f2aa3454 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Could your please share your thoughts on this? Thanks, Indranil ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: iamredheart22 . Date: Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 8:34 PM Subject: Question on mvrf To: "pim@ietf.org" Hi, Can there be a case where two customers belonging to different vrfs join the same group, say 225.1.1.1? And each of these customers have different sources sending different data for the group. I am asking if one multicast address is sold to one customer only. Thanks, Indranil --001a1134541af128a104f2aa3454 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Could your please share your thoughts on this?
Thanks,
Indranil

---= ------- Forwarded message ----------
From: iamredheart22 . <myselfindranil@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 8:34 PM
Subject: Question on mvrf
To: &quo= t;pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org>


Hi,

=A0=A0=A0 Can there be a case where two customers belongin= g to different vrfs join the same group, say 225.1.1.1? And each of these c= ustomers have different sources sending different data for the group. I am = asking if one multicast address is sold to one customer only.

Thanks,
Indranil

--001a1134541af128a104f2aa3454-- From nobody Tue Feb 18 05:30:43 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E31EA1A04CC for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 05:30:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VHmz2WWX-zEB for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 05:30:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from va3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (va3ehsobe002.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.180.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 129AD1A04C8 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 05:30:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail24-va3-R.bigfish.com (10.7.14.253) by VA3EHSOBE012.bigfish.com (10.7.40.62) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 13:30:36 +0000 Received: from mail24-va3 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail24-va3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 137422A00FF; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 13:30:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.240.101; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:BL2PRD0510HT005.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -31 X-BigFish: VPS-31(zf7Iz9371I8f9Rc85fh4015Izz1f42h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h2146h1202h1e76h2189h1d1ah1d2ah21bch1fc6hzz1d7338h1de098h1033IL17326ah8275bh8275dh18c673h1c8fb4h1de097h186068hz2fh109h2a8h839hd24hf0ah1288h12a5h12bdh137ah1441h1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1bceh224fh1d07h1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1de9h1dfeh1dffh1e1dh1fe8h1ff5h20f0h2216h22d0h2336h2461h2487h24d7h2516h2545h255eh9a9j1155h) Received-SPF: pass (mail24-va3: domain of juniper.net designates 157.56.240.101 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.56.240.101; envelope-from=zzhang@juniper.net; helo=BL2PRD0510HT005.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ; X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009001)(164054003)(377454003)(189002)(199002)(22974006)(2473001)(77096001)(19300405004)(83072002)(63696002)(85852003)(54316002)(16236675002)(69226001)(85306002)(51856001)(76482001)(54356001)(53806001)(81542001)(81342001)(87266001)(47976001)(50986001)(19609705001)(87936001)(2656002)(46102001)(56816005)(66066001)(74706001)(65816001)(74876001)(74366001)(33646001)(76576001)(76796001)(76786001)(74316001)(80976001)(19580405001)(19580395003)(83322001)(77982001)(94316002)(95666001)(86362001)(74502001)(93136001)(94946001)(95416001)(93516002)(47446002)(80022001)(90146001)(47736001)(49866001)(4396001)(81816001)(59766001)(74662001)(31966008)(92566001)(18717965001)(81686001)(56776001)(15975445006)(79102001)(15202345003)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR05MB079; H:BY2PR05MB079.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; CLIP:66.129.241.13; FPR:BCD6C59F.2CF25FD9.7BDD3140.C4608D20.20188; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; Received: from mail24-va3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail24-va3 (MessageSwitch) id 1392730234664505_19554; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 13:30:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from VA3EHSMHS007.bigfish.com (unknown [10.7.14.233]) by mail24-va3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97FC52C0056; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 13:30:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from BL2PRD0510HT005.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.240.101) by VA3EHSMHS007.bigfish.com (10.7.99.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 13:30:34 +0000 Received: from BY2PR05MB079.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.38.16) by BL2PRD0510HT005.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.100.40) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.411.0; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 13:30:34 +0000 Received: from BY2PR05MB079.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.38.16) by BY2PR05MB079.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.38.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.878.16; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 13:30:31 +0000 Received: from BY2PR05MB079.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.8.20]) by BY2PR05MB079.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.8.20]) with mapi id 15.00.0878.008; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 13:30:31 +0000 From: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" To: "iamredheart22 ." , "pim@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [pim] Fwd: Question on mvrf Thread-Index: AQHPLIUAFgT29nikOkueg09vz3uAmpq7AZqA Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 13:30:30 +0000 Message-ID: <9bbeab37cc314e269c10a9a4469d7cd3@BY2PR05MB079.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.13] x-forefront-prvs: 0126A32F74 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9bbeab37cc314e269c10a9a4469d7cd3BY2PR05MB079namprd05pro_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn% Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/XZvsiRK88tVXexRk91cPnyoU4D4 Subject: Re: [pim] Fwd: Question on mvrf X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 13:30:42 -0000 --_000_9bbeab37cc314e269c10a9a4469d7cd3BY2PR05MB079namprd05pro_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Indranil, This is an MVPN question - please refer to http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft= -ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-extranet-03. Jeffrey From: pim [mailto:pim-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of iamredheart22 . Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 3:39 AM To: pim@ietf.org Subject: [pim] Fwd: Question on mvrf Could your please share your thoughts on this? Thanks, Indranil ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: iamredheart22 . > Date: Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 8:34 PM Subject: Question on mvrf To: "pim@ietf.org" > Hi, Can there be a case where two customers belonging to different vrfs joi= n the same group, say 225.1.1.1? And each of these customers have different= sources sending different data for the group. I am asking if one multicast= address is sold to one customer only. Thanks, Indranil --_000_9bbeab37cc314e269c10a9a4469d7cd3BY2PR05MB079namprd05pro_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Indranil,

 <= /p>

This is an MVPN question = – please refer to ht= tp://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-extranet-03.<= /span>

 <= /p>

Jeffrey=

 

From: pim [mai= lto:pim-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of iamredheart22 .
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 3:39 AM
To: pim@ietf.org
Subject: [pim] Fwd: Question on mvrf

 

Could your please sha= re your thoughts on this?

Thanks,
Indranil

 

---------- Forwarded = message ----------
From: iamredheart22 . <myselfindranil@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 8:34 PM
Subject: Question on mvrf
To: "pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org>

Hi,

    Ca= n there be a case where two customers belonging to different vrfs join the = same group, say 225.1.1.1? And each of these customers have different sourc= es sending different data for the group. I am asking if one multicast address is sold to one customer only.

Thanks,
Indranil

 

--_000_9bbeab37cc314e269c10a9a4469d7cd3BY2PR05MB079namprd05pro_-- From nobody Wed Feb 19 01:41:58 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D08551A012D for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 01:41:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JOuqRJXLbVG7 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 01:41:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qc0-x230.google.com (mail-qc0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C6E11A00B1 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 01:41:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qc0-f176.google.com with SMTP id e16so136491qcx.7 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 01:41:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Rpvlc1NC2bmnZCmRrgQpv1XVdBR3D1cLuHZYOsIyUik=; b=vp6cKGYQWasSBJSeemAxH20usQZKdL/ov8Cap92k+5Rj3s9RMeiR279TBZRsujqUay S8irijwAmNbCCQ5airmvOL7Ljhep07O8ok2Xb26lXO3KivMXjHw2P6dMNsg+2SHH0ev4 Xy4bLUd4XtMUPqNf8bllL/VHr3fPhslOhOyluIik9sUY4ji/HSrjkq7gm3zP2E+AO2Yd K9efm0YzpSkypfOuOhZV2LBzqFUQ0jXNt9U+GTLHSjfd9AxcmP1UmFMqZjC2iffaeW3I Bl0WPsnrMLxaCqtRsG/AgS9ot+hW7OiyPk+muyIpS6+TetPgRjPl7EmmXJwHYtUQl3V4 62AQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.224.75.73 with SMTP id x9mr49943233qaj.36.1392802908752; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 01:41:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.140.97.37 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 01:41:48 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <9bbeab37cc314e269c10a9a4469d7cd3@BY2PR05MB079.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: <9bbeab37cc314e269c10a9a4469d7cd3@BY2PR05MB079.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 15:11:48 +0530 Message-ID: From: "iamredheart22 ." To: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c303089e543404f2bf3208 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/EWoFZlVe6xJacnJAKyOeMQ9K-w8 Cc: "pim@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [pim] Fwd: Question on mvrf X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 09:41:56 -0000 --001a11c303089e543404f2bf3208 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Thanks Jeffery. I will go through the document. To give a clear picture, I am trying to implement mvrf in a vrf lite deployment. Only difference is that multiple customer networks will share the same datacenter devices, So my configurations are behind Customer Edge. I will not do anything in the PE. So I am thinking if it is possible for two customers to use same multicast group for different purposes say one uses it for video streaming and the other for stock application. Thanks. On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang wrote: > Indranil, > > > > This is an MVPN question - please refer to > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-extranet-03. > > > > Jeffrey > > > > *From:* pim [mailto:pim-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *iamredheart22 . > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 18, 2014 3:39 AM > *To:* pim@ietf.org > *Subject:* [pim] Fwd: Question on mvrf > > > > Could your please share your thoughts on this? > > Thanks, > Indranil > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *iamredheart22 .* > Date: Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 8:34 PM > Subject: Question on mvrf > To: "pim@ietf.org" > > Hi, > > Can there be a case where two customers belonging to different vrfs > join the same group, say 225.1.1.1? And each of these customers have > different sources sending different data for the group. I am asking if one > multicast address is sold to one customer only. > > Thanks, > Indranil > > > --001a11c303089e543404f2bf3208 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks Jeffery. I will go through the document. To gi= ve a clear picture,  I am trying to implement mvrf in a vrf lite deplo= yment. Only difference is that multiple customer networks will share the sa= me datacenter devices,  So my configurations are behind Customer Edge.= I will not do anything in the PE. So I am thinking if it is possible for t= wo customers to use same multicast group for different purposes say one use= s it for video streaming and the other for stock application.

Thanks.


On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <z= zhang@juniper.net> wrote:

Indranil,

 

This is an MVPN question = – please refer to http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-extranet-0= 3.

 

Jeffrey

 


--001a11c303089e543404f2bf3208-- From nobody Thu Feb 20 11:52:09 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 665691A023F for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 11:52:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WcfxmbD01uw3 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 11:52:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 354D21A01FD for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 11:52:06 -0800 (PST) X-AuditID: c618062d-b7f858e0000031c7-f3-53065cde0540 Received: from EUSAAHC008.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.96]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 1D.FD.12743.EDC56035; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 20:51:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from EUSAAMB109.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.126]) by EUSAAHC008.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.96]) with mapi id 14.02.0387.000; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 14:52:02 -0500 From: Mike McBride To: Mike McBride , "pim@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Call for adoption of pim-join-attributes-for-lisp Thread-Index: Ac8W5kCJRewan2ErRqO+VSr8xJLTHgXjEHPw Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 19:52:00 +0000 Message-ID: <6F5149063CE40341BE7953160A93C5A0E5CDA0@eusaamb109.ericsson.se> References: <6F5149063CE40341BE7953160A93C5A0E0F32D@eusaamb109.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <6F5149063CE40341BE7953160A93C5A0E0F32D@eusaamb109.ericsson.se> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.11] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6F5149063CE40341BE7953160A93C5A0E5CDA0eusaamb109ericsso_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrPLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPgu79GLZgg9nHuS2+PLzJ7MDosWTJ T6YAxigum5TUnMyy1CJ9uwSujNc/57IUnDGt+Lj2AEsD4wO9LkZODgkBE4m/X14zQdhiEhfu rWfrYuTiEBI4wihxe80rdghnOaPEkYNvWEGq2AT0JE4vbAazRQS8JSZOu8kCYgsL2En0bmhi g4jbS6xd3AZlG0mcvnoRqJ6Dg0VAVeLLOT6QMC9Q66Jvb8FahYDs7Q9ugB3BKeAjcfnIS0YQ mxHooO+n1oDFmQXEJW49mQ91qIDEkj3nmSFsUYmXj/+xQthKEh9/z2eHqM+XWLJ+FjvELkGJ kzOfsExgFJmFZNQsJGWzkJRBxHUkFuz+xAZha0ssW/iaGcY+c+AxE7L4Akb2VYwcpcWpZbnp RgabGIGRckyCTXcH456XlocYpTlYlMR5v7x1DhISSE8sSc1OTS1ILYovKs1JLT7EyMTBKdXA 6HRBp+Px8rtPt7gY7FA++aZ5vbv15FOWbJsuuVx3j3pV8tM06V1mwS1n5709Qk+bsj+H2ATe vWrzdzvDn32GBllaHPc6VT7EHXmyXaa0w3hrs9S6vilrn/z+K1V/xMT8dNnZdS7s1u8dDjm6 WX7dUeav9G9O0lqnlTXV8yNlHT/v1Hyh4HfFWomlOCPRUIu5qDgRAD5df9hiAgAA Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/j6TjsDJS_qM5o3ndrriJdaG-FhQ Subject: Re: [pim] Call for adoption of pim-join-attributes-for-lisp X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 19:52:08 -0000 --_000_6F5149063CE40341BE7953160A93C5A0E5CDA0eusaamb109ericsso_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable We've seen nothing but support for this draft in response to this call for = adoption. The opposition from the room in Vancouver still looms although no= further comments were declared on the list. The draft has been now been up= dated to experimental (as is LISP) and the authors understand that this dra= ft will not be published until further progress is made on work within LISP= , something which was a concern of a few within our wg. Therefore, with what appears to be rough consensus, I recommend that we ado= pt and begin further work on this draft and will direct the authors to subm= it a pim wg draft version. Thanks, Mike http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-arango-pim-join-attributes-for-lisp-01.txt From: pim [mailto:pim-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mike McBride Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 12:34 PM To: pim@ietf.org Subject: [pim] Call for adoption of pim-join-attributes-for-lisp The authors of this draft requested a call for adoption of their draft. At = our last meeting, in Vancouver, 5 people were in favor of adopting the draf= t. 3 were against. One of those against shared the opinion of there being t= oo much existing lisp work needing to be completed within the lisp wg and t= his additional work may muddy the water. Those in favor stated that the lis= p wg is supportive of this work being done within pim. What say you? http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-arango-pim-join-attributes-for-lisp-00.txt thanks, mike --_000_6F5149063CE40341BE7953160A93C5A0E5CDA0eusaamb109ericsso_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

We’ve seen nothi= ng but support for this draft in response to this call for adoption. The op= position from the room in Vancouver still looms although no further comment= s were declared on the list. The draft has been now been updated to experimental (as is LISP) and the authors underst= and that this draft will not be published until further progress is made on= work within LISP, something which was a concern of a few within our wg.

 

Therefore, with what a= ppears to be rough consensus, I recommend that we adopt and begin further w= ork on this draft and will direct the authors to submit a pim wg draft vers= ion.

 

Thanks,

Mike=

 

http://www.ie= tf.org/id/draft-arango-pim-join-attributes-for-lisp-01.txt

 

 

From: pim [mai= lto:pim-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mike McBride
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 12:34 PM
To: pim@ietf.org
Subject: [pim] Call for adoption of pim-join-attributes-for-lisp

 

The authors of this draft requested a call for adopt= ion of their draft. At our last meeting, in Vancouver, 5 people were in fav= or of adopting the draft. 3 were against. One of those against shared the o= pinion of there being too much existing lisp work needing to be completed within the lisp wg and this additional w= ork may muddy the water. Those in favor stated that the lisp wg is supporti= ve of this work being done within pim.

 

What say you?

 

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-arango-pim= -join-attributes-for-lisp-00.txt

 

thanks,

mike

--_000_6F5149063CE40341BE7953160A93C5A0E5CDA0eusaamb109ericsso_-- From nobody Mon Feb 24 10:39:56 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF0A91A01C6 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 10:39:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WGhaZ5iYe9WK for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 10:39:52 -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 236451A01CA for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 10:39:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2001:420:301:1004:b904:863e:d8c2:a77b] (unknown [IPv6:2001:420:301:1004:b904:863e:d8c2:a77b]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6B9BB8012 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 19:39:50 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <530B91F1.1040809@venaas.com> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 10:39:45 -0800 From: Stig Venaas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "pim@ietf.org" References: <53026471.5020402@venaas.com> In-Reply-To: <53026471.5020402@venaas.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/pzun6c5MB48n7GTC51eR2IFmT8E Subject: Re: [pim] Request for London agenda items X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: "pim-chairs@tools.ietf.org" List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 18:39:54 -0000 Hi I don't see any responses to this, except for an update on the drlb draft. Is there really no one else? We'll do a status update and talk at least briefly about the active WG drafts, but it looks like it might be a short meeting then. Stig On 2/17/2014 11:35 AM, Stig Venaas wrote: > If you would like a slot on the pim agenda for London, 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 > > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim From nobody Tue Feb 25 03:54:43 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 568F71A03D7 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 03:54:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j3SQB-84ywEl for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 03:54:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qc0-x22f.google.com (mail-qc0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0C141A03CA for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 03:54:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qc0-f175.google.com with SMTP id e16so3529166qcx.20 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 03:54:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=MDYiaZ3d3tMI5Z8LEEv6uLIEg4BWMVdmCy106D9DOB8=; b=MwFISzcYI3FJyr07jFWOeBFhOxF6kl0xy+q//QUlCs7RqggDexgakViw2Z6L/sZSvP CiUqBkIJz3qsVSjC/JCk4154HSNvcj53b2Sl4X/WNrv2bW34WqVqrx8VdlYugBlU3biV MWgISGVM9UfOrVMLYg2RWQNDpjkFY3Nh0WNepi0A4V1RyScATj/L9cBgiml/cAaJofg9 dYJBQgMun275ZDHwNeCu0HupYn8BndAPbKOQk4feqjOKPue4RwydTeMMpPP+Aj2PnyTI XK5oUCeX4GodC/7BnkgLLHx9aYmw4BzS8EQ1ACODMVzOj/LwXebicslGWDtXh8juVLIS tLWw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.106.225 with SMTP id e88mr34888647qgf.66.1393329281013; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 03:54:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.140.27.131 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 03:54:40 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 17:24:40 +0530 Message-ID: From: "iamredheart22 ." To: "pim@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a8626d9bf3c04f339c02b Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/3LjOi9SOWti1g97I4vUgt_3Xbe8 Subject: [pim] Question on anycast rp X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:54:43 -0000 --001a113a8626d9bf3c04f339c02b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hello, I have a question on anycast rp(rfc 4610). This is where rp(rpA) sends copy of the register message to other rps(rpB and rpC) in the anycast rp set. If dest ip of the outer header is rp address then the packet reaches either rpB or rpC, whichever is closest to rpA. How do the packets reach corresponding rps? What difference is there between a copy to rpB and a copy to rpC if egress interface to reach both the peers from rpA is same? Thanks, Indranil --001a113a8626d9bf3c04f339c02b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello,

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 I have= a question on anycast rp(rfc 4610). This is where rp(rpA) sends copy of th= e register message to other rps(rpB and rpC) in the anycast rp set. If dest= ip of the outer header is rp address then the packet reaches either rpB or= rpC, whichever is closest to rpA. How do the packets reach corresponding r= ps? What difference is there between a copy to rpB and a copy to rpC if egr= ess interface to reach both the peers from rpA is same?

Thanks,
Indranil



=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
=A0 =A0 =A0

<= /div> --001a113a8626d9bf3c04f339c02b-- From nobody Tue Feb 25 07:41:10 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E25701A0074 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 07:41:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vcKvgVdap4ug for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 07:41:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2lp0204.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.204]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE4CD1A00B6 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 07:41:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from BLUPR03MB262.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.213.20) by BLUPR03MB590.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.124.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.888.9; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 15:40:57 +0000 Received: from BLUPR03MB262.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.1.60]) by BLUPR03MB262.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.1.60]) with mapi id 15.00.0883.010; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 15:40:57 +0000 From: Yiqun Cai To: "iamredheart22 ." , "pim@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [pim] Question on anycast rp Thread-Index: AQHPMiBieSqoYjTFnEmMDM9lFQCXsZrGG4WW Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 15:40:56 +0000 Message-ID: <86e7c091c94a48af9b94374fe8d18cca@BLUPR03MB262.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [174.62.109.184] x-forefront-prvs: 01334458E5 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009001)(6009001)(164054003)(199002)(189002)(377454003)(86612001)(74706001)(95416001)(74876001)(94946001)(92566001)(16236675002)(95666003)(56816005)(74366001)(31966008)(74662001)(47446002)(74502001)(85806002)(90146001)(2656002)(74316001)(87936001)(83072002)(85306002)(85852003)(77982001)(66066001)(80022001)(81686001)(83322001)(33646001)(80976001)(59766001)(81816001)(63696002)(79102001)(93136001)(81342001)(81542001)(93516002)(51856001)(53806001)(54356001)(46102001)(19580395003)(19580405001)(87266001)(69226001)(76482001)(54316002)(56776001)(76796001)(76786001)(47736001)(49866001)(47976001)(50986001)(94316002)(76576001)(4396001)(77096001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR03MB590; H:BLUPR03MB262.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; CLIP:174.62.109.184; FPR:2CBEF51C.2D0266E9.CBD03F7C.C4E51FBC.2017F; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_86e7c091c94a48af9b94374fe8d18ccaBLUPR03MB262namprd03pro_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/wvvhnAuwZSb-dAaEYBidZdCZlVM Subject: Re: [pim] Question on anycast rp X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 15:41:09 -0000 --_000_86e7c091c94a48af9b94374fe8d18ccaBLUPR03MB262namprd03pro_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The destination address of the outer header is *not* the anycast RP address= . So RPA has to send one copy to RP-B and another to RP-C. -- Yiqun ________________________________ From: pim on behalf of iamredheart22 . Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 3:54 AM To: pim@ietf.org Subject: [pim] Question on anycast rp Hello, I have a question on anycast rp(rfc 4610). This is where rp(rpA) se= nds copy of the register message to other rps(rpB and rpC) in the anycast r= p set. If dest ip of the outer header is rp address then the packet reaches= either rpB or rpC, whichever is closest to rpA. How do the packets reach c= orresponding rps? What difference is there between a copy to rpB and a copy= to rpC if egress interface to reach both the peers from rpA is same? Thanks, Indranil --_000_86e7c091c94a48af9b94374fe8d18ccaBLUPR03MB262namprd03pro_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

The destination address of the outer header is *not* the anycast RP addr= ess. So RPA has to send one copy to RP-B and another to RP-C.

 

 

--

Yiqun

From: pim <pim-bounces= @ietf.org> on behalf of iamredheart22 . <myselfindranil@gmail.com>=
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 3:54 AM
To: pim@ietf.org
Subject: [pim] Question on anycast rp
 
Hello,

        I have a question on anycast rp(= rfc 4610). This is where rp(rpA) sends copy of the register message to othe= r rps(rpB and rpC) in the anycast rp set. If dest ip of the outer header is= rp address then the packet reaches either rpB or rpC, whichever is closest to rpA. How do the packets reach corresponding rps? What differenc= e is there between a copy to rpB and a copy to rpC if egress interface to r= each both the peers from rpA is same?

Thanks,
Indranil



 
        
     

--_000_86e7c091c94a48af9b94374fe8d18ccaBLUPR03MB262namprd03pro_-- From nobody Wed Feb 26 10:30:35 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85A391A07FC for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 10:30:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o-ralN8MPWJK for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 10:30:27 -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 F34371A07FB for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 10:30:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2001:420:301:1004:e5b2:205e:81a5:b23b] (unknown [IPv6:2001:420:301:1004:e5b2:205e:81a5:b23b]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D774F805D for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 19:30:23 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <530E32B9.3060609@venaas.com> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 10:30:17 -0800 From: Stig Venaas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "pim@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/dErjJps-5PoaAU87KUImRLB1PMc Subject: [pim] pim agenda for London X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 18:30:31 -0000 Here is our very short pim agenda. Please let me and Mike know if you want to be on the agenda. Title Presenter Minutes ==================================================================== WG Status Chairs 20 Status of drafts draft-ietf-pim-drlb-03 W. Zhou 20 status/update Experimental/private join attribute types? S. Venaas 10 From nobody Thu Feb 27 13:34:47 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C47A91A0269 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 13:34:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aVuKEwCzBZvS for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 13:34:43 -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 6B1F01A0292 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 13:34:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from [IPv6:2001:420:301:1004:c80:5565:b547:a3b0] (unknown [IPv6:2001:420:301:1004:c80:5565:b547:a3b0]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 92795805C for ; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 22:34:40 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <530FAF6E.5090706@venaas.com> Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 13:34:38 -0800 From: Stig Venaas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "pim@ietf.org" References: <530E32B9.3060609@venaas.com> In-Reply-To: <530E32B9.3060609@venaas.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/uklTQ3F9Jo5YBUeZHkp2GrASaio Subject: Re: [pim] pim agenda for London X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 21:34:46 -0000 We now got one more agenda item. Anything else? Note that we're scheduled Wednesday 13-15, but we will probably end early. Here is the new agenda (which also is posted): Title Presenter Minutes ==================================================================== WG Status Chairs 20 Status of drafts draft-ietf-pim-drlb-03 W. Zhou 20 status/update Experimental/private join attribute types? S. Venaas 10 draft-zzhang-l3vpn-mvpn-global-table-mcast-03 J. Zhang 15 Stig