Re: [pim] Hi Hitoshi, we have discussed your comments about draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang on ietf106, and have some questions. Thanks!

Hitoshi Asaeda <> Wed, 11 December 2019 02:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FFF21200F5 for <>; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 18:17:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ATO9Jf3OQrXS for <>; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 18:17:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::432]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE30F120086 for <>; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 18:17:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id s18so962820pfd.8 for <>; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 18:17:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=xS+okGh43coczhaNUcjGwNYAbFJj/AAUXozYrXgsRTQ=; b=dB6eIyV3R2cZiVuvYtCLRrm+eLWwBI700Do2nJb+NaugJ9gHBo7HB4lwrmHeX0cYVA ZePeh0o95s+iXgcTBcZw04cc3cB/PSZCDMOoPt7qE99FiVmKViQODSD+CkdgNhum0Z8K 6ONKKuobdxJxOcY6jwmlPwOJqhsANCBsKI4zE=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=xS+okGh43coczhaNUcjGwNYAbFJj/AAUXozYrXgsRTQ=; b=HOIDS+J0COT+BGmb+TBXAGRYxJZbkRpo8QtK1FwiJVe9zvmw0aQ3tN6/A3Zghz2DCB 3sgYoIz4HiSP4d1gSncWXmzRhPXa84eGgaTA+aukgKGwLr9Yqf7r+vGssq7XA8rORA+n 6g1od54Oe7FJ1QTrKMHJld6NRwkqENlqBdKA3hgPS7vhsY3HxoLpaYZTAQivCCQFLZ1f z3GDn8Q4aafF17PSfV8eJKlM/JOox+fxH26eMjZaiSJq9JX8/crRvOQqQns2ntfyfDI6 +aQwvITE15js8jj+N+ozSC0vLXm7IbnJ3hJ9MK1Xq73g0Lz1NFfW2NJ8d46NWmbrzUaE ghsQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUxZXCOAROq5xB3MXYCFRkq9KwsahBY3cza8KHVt5TNg23GzgE+ UClJycr9AtskA3+ScxRqYGCzPn7B+Mg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxuIItl0/ggn0SAD7BUEZVxdRkcxFrbNN9UidvqXxfzxr5Wek2FzuWnZuks8fG8ImzAvUqFzg==
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:9edd:: with SMTP id r29mr1149280pfq.14.1576030669209; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 18:17:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id p38sm260617pjp.27.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 10 Dec 2019 18:17:48 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3601.0.10\))
From: Hitoshi Asaeda <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 16:17:14 -1000
Cc: "" <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Hongji Zhao <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3601.0.10)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [pim] Hi Hitoshi, we have discussed your comments about draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang on ietf106, and have some questions. Thanks!
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 02:17:52 -0000

Hi Hongji,

Usually, the upstream interface works as a host interface and the downstream interface(s) work as router interface(s); therefore it'd be reasonable to enable the explicit tracking function on the downstream interface(s).
The draft was expired three years ago, but you may want to refer the following I-D for the explicit tracking function specification.
(I hope I will resume it after we address the issue of the intended status of this doc.)

BTW, is there a way to configure upstream or downstream for all available interfaces at the proxy?
If yes, is it allowed or disallowed to configure multiple upstream interfaces per IGMP/MLD proxy?
As we shortly discussed in the last PIM meeting, we proposed the extension of configuring multiple upstream interfaces for IGMP/MLD proxy.
Both drafts are still in progress, but if useful, you may want to consider them.



> On Dec 9, 2019, at 21:29, Hongji Zhao <> wrote:
> Hi Hitoshi,
> For IGMP proxy, would you prefer to enable explicit tracking on the upstream interface? or downstream interface?   Thanks a lot!
> In the IGMP proxy yang model, we enable IGMP proxy on the upstream interface. 
> module: ietf-igmp-mld-proxy
>  augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/rt:control-plane-protocol:
>    +--rw igmp-proxy {feature-igmp-proxy}?
>       +--rw interfaces
>          +--rw interface* [interface-name]
>             +--rw interface-name           if:interface-ref
>             +--rw version?                 uint8
>             +--rw enable?                  boolean
>             +--rw sender-source-address?   inet:ipv4-address
>             +--ro group* [group-address]
>                +--ro group-address    inet:ipv4-address
>                +--ro up-time?         uint32
>                +--ro filter-mode?     enumeration
>                +--ro source* [source-address]
>                   +--ro source-address          inet:ipv4-address
>                   +--ro up-time?                uint32
>                   +--ro downstream-interface* [interface-name]
>                      +--ro interface-name    if:interface-ref
> BR/Hongji
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list