Re: [magma] IGMPV3 Reports
Liu Hui <liuhui47967@huawei.com> Thu, 17 June 2010 10:28 UTC
Return-Path: <liuhui47967@huawei.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 D0F073A692E for <magma@core3.amsl.com>;
Thu, 17 Jun 2010 03:28:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.805
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.805 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300,
BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 9pEm77RRaVNn for
<magma@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 03:28:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.64]) by
core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03A1C3A68FC for <magma@ietf.org>;
Thu, 17 Jun 2010 03:28:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga01-in [172.24.2.3]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com
(iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id
<0L450079EMFLL7@szxga01-in.huawei.com> for magma@ietf.org;
Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:28:33 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet
Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id
<0L45000USMFLX2@szxga01-in.huawei.com> for magma@ietf.org;
Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:28:33 +0800 (CST)
Received: from l47967b ([10.110.98.139]) by szxml06-in.huawei.com (iPlanet
Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id
<0L45002EXMFK6G@szxml06-in.huawei.com> for magma@ietf.org;
Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:28:33 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 18:28:33 +0800
From: Liu Hui <liuhui47967@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <AANLkTinZlORYpBx6TU3M9kaje_B5rPDYMyuc8kdvCcXI@mail.gmail.com>
To: 'rajasekar bonthala' <rajasekhar.bonthala@gmail.com>, magma@core3.amsl.com,
magma@ietf.org
Message-id: <00a101cb0e07$d67a99b0$8b626e0a@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Thread-index: AcsOAphqNlK34CkvSp6CoC7GktyI3AAAZSpg
Subject: Re: [magma] IGMPV3 Reports
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: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:28:41 -0000
Hi, RajaSekhar IS_IN (or IS_EX) is sent passively in response to Queries from the router, and when the host's interface state is in INCLUDE (or EXCLUDE) filter-mode. TO_IN (or TO_EX) is sent actively when the interface state of the host changes, from INCLUDE to EXCLUDE mode (or from EXCLUDE to INCLUDE mode). Refer to sec. 2, 3, 4.2.12 and 4.2.15 of 3376 for detailed explanation. Best Regards, Liu Hui > -----Original Message----- > From: magma-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:magma-bounces@ietf.org] > On Behalf Of rajasekar bonthala > Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 5:50 PM > To: magma@core3.amsl.com; magma@ietf.org > Subject: [magma] IGMPV3 Reports > > Hello All, > > What is the difference between IS_INCLUDE Report and > TO_INCLUDE Report and similarily for IS_EXCL and TO_EXCL? > > Thanks, > RajaSekhar > >
- [magma] IGMPV3 Reports rajasekar bonthala
- Re: [magma] IGMPV3 Reports Liu Hui
- Re: [magma] IGMPV3 Reports Bharat Joshi