[pim] Default BSR priority issue!
Prashant Jhingran <prashantj@huawei.com> Wed, 03 November 2004 04:46 UTC
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA26411 for <pim-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 23:46:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CPCla-0001xZ-Gl; Tue, 02 Nov 2004 23:29:02 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CPCeX-0005wT-9b for pim@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2004 23:21:45 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA24220 for <pim@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 23:21:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from catarina.usc.edu ([204.57.0.1]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CPCth-0000A7-6N for pim@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2004 23:37:31 -0500
Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in.huawei.com [61.144.161.55] (may be forged)) by catarina.usc.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id iA34L5oh066832 for <pim@catarina.usc.edu>; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 20:21:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from prashantj@huawei.com)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0I6L00EIA517WD@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for pim@catarina.usc.edu; Wed, 03 Nov 2004 12:12:43 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxml01-in ([172.24.1.3]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0I6L00B0W517NY@szxga03-in.huawei.com> forpim@catarina.usc.edu; Wed, 03 Nov 2004 12:12:43 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei8tthy486 ([10.110.34.48]) by szxml01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar3 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0I6L00ATO561D6@szxml01-in.huawei.com>; Wed, 03 Nov 2004 12:15:38 +0800 (CST)
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 12:12:26 +0800
From: Prashant Jhingran <prashantj@huawei.com>
To: pim@catarina.usc.edu
Message-id: <000001c4c15b$54a30110$30226e0a@huawei8tthy486>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Importance: Normal
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
X-imss-version: 2.7
X-imss-result: Passed
X-imss-approveListMatch: *@huawei.com
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 538aad3a3c4f01d8b6a6477ca4248793
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: nbhaskar@cisco.com, ctbrown@nexthop.com, Stig.Venaas@uninett.no, bwilliam@cisco.com
Subject: [pim] Default BSR priority issue!
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <pim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:pim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: pim-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pim-bounces@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi All,
The latest BSR draft no where mentions about the default BSR priority &
that's why probably few
Developers/vendors are using the value "Zero" as default BSR priority.
The problem comes when the EBSR is getting shutdown.
There are no means by which the current EBSR can inform the other
routers in the domain about itself going down.
(Since default BSR priority and the priority to inform when BSR goes
down boils down to the same numerical value i.e. Zero).
I think this issue is more important than the RP-mapping we are
discussion currently and this problem should be resolved in the coming
BSR draft....this would also lead to faster convergence during graceful
EBSR shutdown scenarios.
As per draft-ietf-pim-sm-bsr-04.txt, the latest BSR draft....
======================================================================
4.1. Bootstrap Message Format....
"BSR priority
Contains the BSR priority value of the included BSR. This field is
considered as a high order byte when comparing BSR addresses. Note
that for historical reasons, the highest BSR priority priority is
255 (the higher the better), whereas the highest RP Priority (see
below) is 0 (the lower the better)."
And
3.2. Creating the RP-Set at the BSR....
"When an elected BSR is being shut down, it should immediately originate
a Bootstrap message listing its current RP-Set, but with the BSR
priority field set to the lowest priority value possible. This will
cause the election of a new BSR to happen more quickly."
========================================================================
=
Regards,
Prashant Jhingran
Huawei Technologies
Beijing, China
Ph# 00-86-10-82882837 (O)
00-86-10-62983443 (R)
www.huawei.com
"You see, all the problems in the world are created by those who want
'perfection.' "
-- Sri Sri Ravi Shankar www.artofliving.org
_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
pim@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
- [pim] Default BSR priority issue! Prashant Jhingran
- [pim] Re: Default BSR priority issue! Nidhi Bhaskar