[magma] RE: New snooping draft
"Morten Jagd Christensen (MJC)" <MJC@tt.dk> Wed, 31 July 2002 13:42 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA26684 for <magma-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 09:42:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id JAA09783 for magma-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 09:43:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA09681; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 09:41:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAA21997 for <magma@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 04:24:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from smtp.tt.dk ([212.130.55.83]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA18078 for <magma@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 04:23:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by NTEX with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <32K6GSX2>; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 10:24:12 +0200
Message-ID: <E8F83D6D2A6AD3118E0300902786A20502CFBABA@NTEX>
From: "Morten Jagd Christensen (MJC)" <MJC@tt.dk>
To: "'magma@ietf.org'" <magma@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 10:24:03 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2386B.A13A16B0"
Subject: [magma] RE: New snooping draft
Sender: magma-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: magma-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Multicast and Anycast Group Membership <magma.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: magma@ietf.org
Hi Mahesh Thanks for your comments - they will help us improve the draft. > Hi Morten/Frank, > I had gone through the draft and had the following clarifications associated with this. > 1) Section 2.1.1 (1) suggests that router ports may be learnt using Router discovery protocol /Igmp general queries > or they might be statically configured. My question is we could use the (Pim,Mospf) Hello messages and Dvmrp > probes also to learn the router ports in addition to general queries, > Is there any specific reason why this has not been considered ? In one of the earlier versions of the draft we suggested another identification of multicast routers. However, the method was based on knowledge of specific multicast implementations and not particularly general. The mrdisc protocol was 'born' in the context of igmp snooping switches and is a general solution to the router discovery problem. Se the draft on multicast router discovery (draft-ietf-idmr-igmp-mrdisc-08). We got a hint from the WG chairs that this was the way to go :) > 2) Section 2.1.1 (2) mentions > "IGMP membership reports MUST NOT be rejected because of a > source IP address of 0.0.0.0; however, these messages MUST NOT > be included the election process so that a snooping switch does > not elected over an active router". > I am not really clear why would membership reports be used for election. > It is usually the case where only the general queries are used for election. In an attempt to describe two things at the same time we fail! We will need to rephrase this paragraph in the next draft. > 3) Section 2.1.1 also says > "An IGMP proxy-reporting switch may act as Querier for the down > stream hosts while proxy reporting to the 'real' upstream > queriers." > Since general queries will be flooded will we not run into a condition here > where the router sees the general query from the switch and becomes the non > querier since the switch general query would come with in ip of 0.0.0.0 and would > always win the election ? The flooding is not a problem since the proxy switch is the originator of queries on the downstream ports only. Upstream it acts as a host and not a querier (correct me if wrong). This means that the upstream router can receive membership reports with source addresses 0.0.0.0 which should be treated as valid reports as stated in the draft. If a query with source 0.0.0.0 should reach a router it should be ignored. > 4) Section 2.2 mentions > "A special problem arise in the network consisting of IGMPv3 routers > as well as IGMPv2 and IGMPv3 hosts interconnected by a IGMPv2 > snooping switch. IGMPv3 has a mechanism to fall back to IGMPv2 > when receiving IGMPv2 membership reports. This means that the net > work will converged on IGMPv2 eventually.However, the convergence > time will lead to supression of v3 Hosts for several minutes." > Not really sure how this could occur since Igmp V3 routers would maintain > timer stating that V2 hosts are present when V2 report is seeen but this does not imply that V3 reports > will not be honored. V3 reports will be processed in the fashion as mentioned in the > IgmpV3 draft (3.11) (7.3.2) The router is not the problem. The problem is that the switch does not recognise v3 membership reports, and will not add the v3 host to the forwarding list for that group address. It has been some time since I last read IGMPv3 draft . I see now from skimming the compatibility section of the IGMPv3 draft 11 that this convergence will now not happen at all! So this is one more correction to the draft. Basically don't run IGMPv3 as a host if an IGMPv2 snooping switch is active. Or dont snoop if you have a mixed IGMP network. Thanks for your input /Morten
- [magma] New snooping draft Frank Solensky
- Re: [magma] New snooping draft Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [magma] New snooping draft Mahesh Devarajan
- [magma] RE: New snooping draft Morten Jagd Christensen (MJC)