IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Hitoshi Asaeda <asaeda@ieee.org> Wed, 16 June 2021 15:20 UTC

Return-Path: <asaeda@ieee.org>
X-Original-To: igmp-mld-bis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: igmp-mld-bis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2453B3A1C5B for <igmp-mld-bis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 08:20:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.797
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.797 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.698, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ieee.org
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 UG2a1QWUypHi for <igmp-mld-bis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 08:20:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x431.google.com (mail-pf1-x431.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::431]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B705A3A1C4E for <igmp-mld-bis@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 08:20:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x431.google.com with SMTP id g6so2505285pfq.1 for <igmp-mld-bis@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 08:20:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ieee.org; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=dX/Jfj5+FHkpV3iS5XLYuj/DJkoP6yjbG3upnEdE3ds=; b=HxY1pt+gV/mQVDtVCKRQHeGeEb65NcAQoGCj+t0uUWNyNuVjoTZsm5i065hstcW1Pm 3kH4+rmo3XHtqJYQKCJK5TQi93XBylFTVeQ2AbYCgXnUDLxAHHuEZ3gXC3Pk2eX2ohoS 448DvAXQkgpMjFAr2dsGBWVr5yv/OcmfKWKlE=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=dX/Jfj5+FHkpV3iS5XLYuj/DJkoP6yjbG3upnEdE3ds=; b=kH6iAShh99z/TU/j2btnoKi7KvIKsHMMbor2l5TD+sGARztf06WA53buGVIIK8ccWb VgfM7rMyLUYvtjN58PqUbdy/a+Du9zDpluDoAbmOjExH+4g3AxInEivQXE29HsRBWbaN UsKAtH4fvCGK6r80OJP7W8X1R02FiW5Hunbi+Ojcs9TbzVMxUzPN8gSUZgTIj0EX+p8H nivPCLiMhIGdIxdY63fcdCdlYu5IAfpTbYfJjaF2302AheCMOxy+WRgEqoRRdW9THjba 9YiSogJE6cmaX0zH7OjXFAIEmesb3Ard/5CgAkhDbQH0T08zbW6Qg5Dyuw8onTw2+hGi Rgjw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530BPlbEfu7lZmU4OagBGVVbGIUgiIceDf3FbwqI850zhph3Wu// 8b2UGw52ahuldl3ZCMEBeSSDVA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzQuEGT0bqdhYp8DlBXwlyufX0jQ7xUyR57yv2w8RYPMxnpcq5DMSNdcwbx5qiZe3J4aReRfw==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:4466:: with SMTP id t38mr91729pgk.51.1623856805229; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 08:20:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (zz20164245726F66C1A1.userreverse.dion.ne.jp. [111.102.193.161]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m2sm2626333pjf.24.2021.06.16.08.20.03 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 16 Jun 2021 08:20:04 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.100.0.2.22\))
From: Hitoshi Asaeda <asaeda@ieee.org>
In-Reply-To: <CCAC466E-2658-443B-8E5C-D057B5A6D124@arista.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 00:20:01 +0900
Cc: igmp-mld-bis@ietf.org, Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com>, Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>, abudhira@cisco.com, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C7C3F5F4-D9A0-4A3F-9817-C9133CC134A8@ieee.org>
References: <CCAC466E-2658-443B-8E5C-D057B5A6D124@arista.com>
To: Olufemi Komolafe <femi=40arista.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.100.0.2.22)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/igmp-mld-bis/pJNvAfWAQNvdw9KHNjTYTL2QI-Q>
Subject: Re: [Igmp-mld-bis] June 16 Meeting Notes
X-BeenThere: igmp-mld-bis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IGMPv3/MLDv2 <igmp-mld-bis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/igmp-mld-bis>, <mailto:igmp-mld-bis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/igmp-mld-bis/>
List-Post: <mailto:igmp-mld-bis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:igmp-mld-bis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/igmp-mld-bis>, <mailto:igmp-mld-bis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 15:20:11 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email