Re: [lisp] Comparing LISP multicast with draft-ghanwani-nvo3-app-mcast-framework-01.txt

Linda Dunbar <> Fri, 12 December 2014 21:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93AAD1A8549; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 13:44:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7GbhjOd_fR1P; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 13:44:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA3451A6EF4; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 13:44:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (EHLO ([]) by (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BPZ49124; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 21:44:35 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 21:44:34 +0000
Received: from ([]) by dfweml702-chm ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 13:44:27 -0800
From: Linda Dunbar <>
To: Dino Farinacci <>
Thread-Topic: Comparing LISP multicast with draft-ghanwani-nvo3-app-mcast-framework-01.txt
Thread-Index: AQHQEztPcgLT28AsZ0i/51SzuPuK+5yG6eGAgAVgHLCAAKETgP//lpiQ
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 21:44:28 +0000
Message-ID: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E7D36F@dfweml701-chm>
References: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E75398@dfweml701-chm> <> <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E7D27F@dfweml701-chm> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Comparing LISP multicast with draft-ghanwani-nvo3-app-mcast-framework-01.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 21:44:38 -0000


How would you define the term "joined-multicast-entry"?

Literally, I see "joined-multicast-entry" being similar to  "replication-list for a multicast group", (instead of multicast group), correct? 


-----Original Message-----
From: Dino Farinacci [] 
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 1:56 PM
To: Linda Dunbar
Subject: Re: Comparing LISP multicast with draft-ghanwani-nvo3-app-mcast-framework-01.txt

> For the "source replication" description of our draft (section3.2), I can add the following to make it consistent with the LISP approach. Is it OK?
> "The method of receiver-sites registration for a particular multicast-group described in [LISP-Signal-Free] can be used for NVO3. The registrations from different receiver-sites can be merged at the Multicast Service Node (MSN of Section 3.3) or the NVA to assemble a multicast-replication-list inclusive of all remote NVEs to which receivers for a particular multicast-group are attached. The replication-list for each specific multicast entry is maintained either by MSN or NVA. 
> The receiver-sites registration is achieved by egress NVEs performing the IGMP/MLD snooping to maintain which attached Tenant Systems have subscribed to a given IP multicast stream. When the members of a multicast group are outside the NVO3 domain, it is necessary for NVO3 domain gateways to keep track of the remote members of each multicast group.”  
> Please let me know if this description is good enough?

The description is fine but the term "multicast-group" is probably too specific and does not include IGMPv3 and MLDv2 (S,G) specific entries. I would change "multicast-group" to "joined-multicast-entry" and then define what a "joined-multicast-entry" can be.