Re: [magma] Question about proxy implemenation in RFC 4605

"Alvaro Fernandez" <Alvaro@soportemv.com> Mon, 01 November 2010 21:19 UTC

Return-Path: <Alvaro@soportemv.com>
X-Original-To: magma@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: magma@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DBC23A6A83 for <magma@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 14:19:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sQAZHotZia7A for <magma@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 14:19:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from soportemv.com (correo.soportemv.com [80.81.115.248]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83F363A6A0E for <magma@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 14:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CB7A0A.759A9434"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 22:19:25 +0100
Message-ID: <D5DC4D51A7E80F46AE952361B9296386C14BB0@PE2800.SOPORTE.local>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [magma] Question about proxy implemenation in RFC 4605
Thread-Index: Act3y+dEzA46tWwmR6yuBZkXU/iNeAAi/kn8AGaKR0AABd7hcg==
References: <4FD1E7CD248BF84F86BD4814EDDDBCC150E72D61AE@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <D5DC4D51A7E80F46AE952361B9296386C14BAD@PE2800.SOPORTE.local> <4FD1E7CD248BF84F86BD4814EDDDBCC150E73B620D@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se>
From: "Alvaro Fernandez" <Alvaro@soportemv.com>
To: "Kunal Shah" <kunal.shah@ericsson.com>
Cc: magma@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [magma] Question about proxy implemenation in RFC 4605
X-BeenThere: magma@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multicast and Anycast Group Membership <magma.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/magma>, <mailto:magma-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/magma>
List-Post: <mailto:magma@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:magma-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/magma>, <mailto:magma-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 21:19:30 -0000

Hi Kunai,

I thing my previous Mail was wrong. I was thinking in once interface with múltiple host and this is not your question.

The proxy should apply same rules  explained inRFC3376 in the función IPMulticastListen when there are different sockets using the same multicast group.

I think there is no need for queries, just apply these rules.

Hope this will help

Álvaro 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Kunal Shah [mailto:kunal.shah@ericsson.com]
Enviado el: lun 01/11/2010 19:30
Para: Alvaro Fernandez
CC: magma@ietf.org
Asunto: RE: [magma] Question about proxy implemenation in RFC 4605
 
Hi Alvaro,

For a router to determine that there are no interested hosts on the LAN, it does send out group specific or source-group specific queries. Does this mean, that the proxy device should send out source-group specific queries on other interfaces when deemed required?? How will this scale if there are a large number of interfaces??

Kunal

________________________________
From: Alvaro Fernandez [mailto:Alvaro@soportemv.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 10:36 AM
To: Kunal Shah
Cc: magma@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [magma] Question about proxy implemenation in RFC 4605


Hi Kunal

I read it years ago but I think RFC 4605 explains that the downstream network interface should behave like a router, so the solution is in the state machine explained in RFC3376 for the IGMPv3 router

Álvaro


-----Mensaje original-----
De: magma-bounces@ietf.org en nombre de Kunal Shah
Enviado el: sáb 30/10/2010 2:46
Para: magma@ietf.org
Asunto: [magma] Question about proxy implemenation in RFC 4605

Hi all,

According to RFC 4605, a router creates a membership database after merging the subscriptions on individual interfaces. Lets say that 3 IGMPv3 capable interfaces are as follows:

Interface 1 has host reporting Include S1 -> I(S1)
Interface 2 has host reporting Exclude S2 -> E(0,S2)
Interface 3 has host reporting Exclude nothing -> E(0,0)

For a device doing IGMPv3 proxy, the final membership record for group G is (G, EXCLUDE, NULL). Now lets say the host on interface 3 goes away, because of which the subscription on interface 3 would expire and there wont be any IGMPv3 state on interface 3.  How would the new membership record for PROXY be calculated?? The RFC does not suggest any way to do this. Would IGMP process have to go through each interface again and then recompute the new membership record?? This would be very inefficient especially if there are multiple interfaces.
Is there a better way to recompute the new membership record??


Thanks
Kunal