Re: [Igmp-mld-bis] June 16 Meeting Notes

Hi Hitoshi

We had some discussion about
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3376#section-8.12
We are wondering how this has been implemented by the different host
implementations, including BSD. The problem is that while operating in
say IGMPv2 mode, there is no query interval in the query. Are you able
to see what you did, or maybe point us to how this is done in some
current BSD code?

Thanks,
Stig

On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 8:20 AM Hitoshi Asaeda <asaeda@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> Sorry that I've not joined the meetings except the first one.
> Yeah, never mind my time zone.
>
> BTW, it was very much old implementations but I previously implemented IGMPv3/MLDv2/LW-IGMPv3 NetBSD kernel implementations;
>
> https://web.sfc.wide.ad.jp/~asaeda/igmpv3/index.html
> https://web.sfc.wide.ad.jp/~asaeda/mldv2/index.html
> https://web.sfc.wide.ad.jp/~asaeda/LW-IGMPv3/index.html
>
> My IGMPv3/MLDv2 implementations were also integrated into KAME kernel.
>
> Some notes such as "Compatibility with Older Versions of IGMP" in the following README may be useful.
> https://web.sfc.wide.ad.jp/~asaeda/igmpv3/README.txt
>
> RFC6636 may be also useful.
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6636
>
> Regards,
>
> Hitoshi
>
>
>
> > On Jun 16, 2021, at 23:44, Olufemi Komolafe <femi=40arista.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> >
> > Attendees: Brian, Anuj, Stig, Femi
> >
> > Discussed possibly moving the meeting back 2 hours in the future, to better accommodate West Coast USA (especially as there is no regular attendee based in Asia)
> >
> > Agreed to try to write document targeted at IETF 111.  Cut off date is July 12.
> > + proposal is to try to write to -bis-00 documents based on errata
> >
> > Discussion about issue 3: https://github.com/ietf-wg-pim/igmp-mld-bis/issues/3
> > + Anuj went over his findings
> > + Brian suggested similar issue may exist for MLDv2
> > + Reviewed Stig’s original email on this errata (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/s9dMx_O3cFUyn38CHj81yw4Wp2o/)
> > + Older queriers have no concept of querier interval?
> > + Older Version Querier Present timeout” (RFC 3376, Section 8.12) vs “Other Querier Present Interval”  (RFC 3376, Section 8.5)?
> > + RFC 2236, Section 8.11 defines “Version 1 Router Present Timeout” to be 400s.  Source of 400s?  (Perhaps due to missing timer definitions in RFC 1112: “Each timer is set to a different, randomly-chosen value between zero and D seconds.”)
> > + Will be interesting to find out what Linux and other existing implementations have done for RFC 3376, Section 8.12.
> > + Should host assume default querier interval since host has no way of knowing actual querier interval and is unlikely to measure it?
> >
> > Brief discussion about issue 4: https://github.com/ietf-wg-pim/igmp-mld-bis/issues/4
> > + Agreement that comment addresses issue.
> >
> > AI Stig: Schedule meetings 2 hours earlier, after checking change works for all participants
> > AI Anuj: Check for consistency between formula for calculating "Older version querier present time out” (RFC 3376, Section 8.12) and “Other querier present interval”  (RFC 3376,Section 8.5)
> > AI Tim: How does Linux implement (RFC 3376, Section 8.12)?  Other popular hosts implementation?
> > AI Brian: Create initial -bis-00 documents using XML templates
> > AI All: Any outstanding AIs from June 2 meeting
> >
> > Regards,
> > Femi
> > --
> > Igmp-mld-bis mailing list
> > Igmp-mld-bis@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/igmp-mld-bis
>