Re: [pim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pim-group-rp-mapping-01.txt

[Stig Venaas <[e-mail]>]

Andy Kessler (kessler) wrote:
> Ok, we didn’t intend to restrict or clarify how people should deploy 
> autorp, bsr,
> 
> static or embedded rp – but if you think that is relevant we can add some
> 
> language in a new section like this:
> 
>  
> 
>   Use of dynamic group-to-rp mapping protocols
> 
>  
> 
>   Generally it is not necessary or recommended to run multiple dynamic 
> group-to-rp
> 
>   mapping protocols in one administrative domain. Specifically, there is 
> no interoperation of BSR
> 
>   and AutoRP implied or recommended by this draft. However, if a router 
> was to receive two
>   sets of group-to-rp mappings from AutoRP and BSR, such as may be the 
> case on a border
> 
>   router between two domains or perhaps through a misconfiguration this 
> draft creates a
> 
>   deterministic way to resolve the conflict and select one group-to-rp 
> mapping. This is
> 
>   necessary for consistency and stability of the network across the PIM 
> domain.
> 

I think you could make a more general statement saying that the draft
does not imply implementation of any of the mapping mechanisms, but that
it provides a deterministic way to resolve...

Stig