Re: Please Responde - draft-asaeda-mboned-explicit-tracking-00
Toerless Eckert <eckert <at> cisco.com>
2010-10-05 02:00:47 GMT
I am all for adoption, but i would like to understand whether
adoption in mboned would allow us to drive the result i would like to see.
I would like to see a (standards track) RFC emerging, which
customer can put into an RFP. If the vendor then states compliance,
then the customer should feel safe that he will get equipment that
will support MLDv2/IGMPv3 "shortened leave latency"
(which i would rather love to see called "immediate-leave" because
that's what we have called this so far . And that we could continue
to define IGMP/MLD MIB extensions to represent explicit tracking state
on the router and that such MIB extensions could also go to standard.
Give or take document details that we could/should fix in further
versions of the documents, my question is really whether/how we
can achieve this goal in MBoned given it's an operational group as
opposed to a protocol group. Am i just paranoid ? Is MBoned now claiming
to take on stuff that more logical would have had to be in MAGMA, but
we just don't want to drag on a lot of WGs anymore ? Is this slipping
by on the existing MBoned agenda only as long as we do not introduce
even the tiniest bit of on-the-wire protocol packet modifications,
but just reduce the numbedr of packets we send ?
For example, the benefit of reducing the number of specific queries
is a benefit i am not very interested in (so i would be happy if we just
made that informational and not recommendat), but let's assume i
was interested in it. Then i would be worried about backward compatibility
with other routers (and switches!) on the same LAN that do not support
explicit tracking. As long as we can not recognize whether all routers
support explicit tracking it might be a bad idea trying to minimize the
specific queries. Of course if we had the opportunity in the process