IETF Logo Mail Archive

[pim] IGMP query solicitation message

gangadhara reddy chavva <meetgangadhara@gmail.com> Thu, 02 July 2020 07:37 UTC

Return-Path: <meetgangadhara@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EFCB3A0DE1 for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 00:37:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vgpdek82jG02 for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 00:37:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd36.google.com (mail-io1-xd36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 769193A0DE0 for <pim@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 00:37:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd36.google.com with SMTP id q8so27847039iow.7 for <pim@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Jul 2020 00:37:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=mRCHix4pLYwaw5pC+iQmynL4zZ2udwmiQ2cn38E6t1o=; b=Phq8plFTwDsmodA2kcFOn6rj6l5tNHkHOWguAzteuHMUc6q2cq+VDrgiUrMGpEjmyu ZvhCs/2UOlRRUgaZgiTZQPU9JjlI2fFmjYB2Gp/Un3XvGKtSh+8rEbBeGWN7J+IcIZxO 5I0Kc5LVIxNH32mBj4OTx32GhcXXV1krDesg9t2M0gFu51/23ozv17duR/F7QVkaw7H1 Kc5f1KSuE8EBb/lxdYNeFhI2ZrOnG6lvTNbNznLFIY3bRPSt3Kb5l3mXZshGe9pAptio qfwHROLKyVKn4OGCOg2o5+Om3LR8u0DjML8t1iwiUfFEk6XX6hG3dv3NKG7WfA+hjRLy BU4Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=mRCHix4pLYwaw5pC+iQmynL4zZ2udwmiQ2cn38E6t1o=; b=JpXM8zHhRz+MWA5rgxJwgjszv6JQQhETRrefeKJ4rjbFuVAyNIuSwAKsKjfav7GYe2 Dun1fsix2s7rlsqYU3nqb91BInERTNMEihfZn8jOrfFIpdClIn2BmHEfV7bnPLaDQ7lI jDws6sCIGYVt1xRUI4JpDX8c8NbiuNMMlrYUOx6+st1j13THZmLpWwrenPFa185anYO1 OM6O6tOzY2dPHn1871fMJurGeKCH5yvrQk+y27nWQuvHHiXSJ8JN4LxjKscJC31JiT9c 6wQEUcRrGZqPOcHnvjN9FXV8NHWOoH26zGV9b+Wy8fF39T/CSVV/MxoMaZS+L+O13S8n IsaA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM53244YlbXBIb9zJSRWhvwAlx/jPFrVX1LjHaqZN/R+mj1JkoJBlt LcSpKIf0ddpzFgN5H4Az8Ku2ocrYVgYufH2bo69YwliK
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwBqO6cRRlEolVIhD6OwZdJVYQNFkHhdH3Mh5O2G/SsjRsPQUxm4yW1w6hHgQY2VV376cGxW9sovjanJgFJGgM=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:904c:: with SMTP id v12mr6142231ioq.154.1593675438096; Thu, 02 Jul 2020 00:37:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: gangadhara reddy chavva <meetgangadhara@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2020 13:07:07 +0530
Message-ID: <CAAG_SC-beE+fywnhovZiaAsS_9-bBLEPAz-MHEYihxnz9nRSdw@mail.gmail.com>
To: pim@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000060d9ee05a9707a86"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/9HYqL380KuceR4h60FCgE4G8Yp4>
Subject: [pim] IGMP query solicitation message
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <pim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pim/>
List-Post: <mailto:pim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2020 07:37:21 -0000

Hi,

I could see a problem in igmp snooping functionality during port shut and
unshut, RP switchover. During these triggers if the igmp snooping switch is
not querier, it can't send query messages immediately to get the report
message from the hosts. so snooping switch has to wait for the next querier
query interval to learn the entries. Because of this there could be traffic
drop/flood in the bridge domain.

I could see some vendors are using query solicitation messages to trigger
query messages immediately so the snooping switch can converge the traffic
quickly.

when i search for query solicitation message i couldn't find it in any
ietf/rfc documents which suggest the same. Did I miss something?  Please
let me know if there is any IETF/RFC document which suggests the same.

Thanks,
Gangadhar

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email