Aleksandr Okonnikov | 2 Aug 11:23 2012
Picon

PIM-SM Prune-Echo behavior

Hello,

I'm sorry to trouble WG, but could anyone explain why Prune-Echo is sent after pruning (*,G) or (S,G) on interface (after expiring PP timer) and not before (during PP state)? Am I correct that goal of sending Prune-Echo is to prevent downstream routers who haven't heard Prune (because it had lost in LAN or LAN is partitioned) from ending receive appropriate streams? If so, then, in my mind, it would be correct to send Prune-Echo before pruning (*,G)/(S,G) on upstream router's interface and somehow expand PP state, for instance, with additional time, such that upstream router would be able to complete Prune-Echo procedure (for example, to be able receive override Join in response to Prune-Echo) before transiting to Pruned state. (PIM-SM specification).

My apologies if I'm somewhere wrong.

Thanks in advance for attention.
_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
pim <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
Stig Venaas | 10 Aug 19:26 2012

IETF 84 pim minutes

Draft minutes are now posted at
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/minutes/minutes-84-pim

Stig
The IESG | 13 Aug 17:17 2012
Picon

Protocol Action: 'Protocol Independent Multicast ECMP Redirect' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-pim-ecmp-05.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Protocol Independent Multicast ECMP Redirect'
  (draft-ietf-pim-ecmp-05.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Protocol Independent Multicast
Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Adrian Farrel and Stewart Bryant.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-ecmp/

Technical Summary

  This document introduces the ECMP Redirect, a mechanism to improve
  the RPF procedure over ECMPs.  It allows ECMP path selection to be
  based on administratively selected metrics, such as data
  transmission delays, path preferences and routing metrics.

Working Group Summary

  There is consensus within the PIM WG to publish this document. The
  document has been actively discussed on the wg list and in wg
  meetings.

Document Quality

  There is at least one implementation that will soon ship.

Personnel

  Mike McBride (mmcbride7 <at> gmail.com) is the document shepherd.
  Adrian Farrel (adrian <at> olddog.co.uk) is the responsible AD.
Adrian Farrel | 16 Aug 11:20 2012
Picon

Triage on Errata on RFC 3973

Hello,

There is a little cluster of Errata on RFC 3973. I'd like to mop them up. Your
opinions are encouraged.

http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=3271
This looks right to me.
At the least it makes the text in 4.5.1 consistent with 4.4.2.3.
I propose to Verify this.

http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=3270
This also looks right.
Again, consistency with 4.4.2.3 is desirable.
However, for clarity, I propose to fix this by making the change in the new text
in the previous Errata note, and then rejecting this as a duplicate of 3271.

http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=3286
This may be fine and useful, but it does not qualify as Errata because it is
introducing new text and material.
If the WG feels strongly about this, it can be brought forward as a small
Informational I-D or included in an update of this RFC.
I propose to Reject this giving that reason.

Thanks,
Adrian
Stig Venaas | 31 Aug 00:41 2012

Re: FW: New Version Notification for draft-lts-pim-hello-mtu-00.txt

Hi Helen

In the pim meeting we were wondering whether there were similar issues
in unicast routing protocols and how they handle it. The routing area
AD (Adrian) suggested that we bring it up on the routing area wg list
rtgwg <at> ietf.org. At least I think that was the list he suggested. I think
that would be a good place for such discussions.

Stig
Adrian Farrel | 31 Aug 20:11 2012
Picon

Re: FW: New Version Notification for draft-lts-pim-hello-mtu-00.txt

Yup,

Sending the question to a number of places seems like a good idea.

I suggest routing-discussion <at> ietf.org, ospf <at> ietf.org, isis-wg <at> ietf.org
You can certainly also add rtgwg <at> ietf.org

I suggest that you request that responses are sent only to you and to the PIM WG
to avoid spamming everyone!

A

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pim-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:pim-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stig
> Venaas
> Sent: 30 August 2012 23:42
> To: Liu Hui
> Cc: pim <at> ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [pim] FW: New Version Notification for draft-lts-pim-hello-mtu-
> 00.txt
> 
> Hi Helen
> 
> In the pim meeting we were wondering whether there were similar issues
> in unicast routing protocols and how they handle it. The routing area
> AD (Adrian) suggested that we bring it up on the routing area wg list
> rtgwg <at> ietf.org. At least I think that was the list he suggested. I think
> that would be a good place for such discussions.
> 
> Stig
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim

Gmane