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

[Stig Venaas <[e-mail]>]

Andy Kessler (kessler) wrote:
> Comments below...
> 
> ----Original Message-----
> From: Stig Venaas [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 1:14 AM
> To: Andy Kessler (kessler)
> Cc: John Zwiebel (jzwiebel); [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [pim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pim-group-rp-mapping-01.txt
> 
> 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
> 
> Andy> John is not directly concerned about the implementation of the
> mapping
> Andy> mechanisms but rather that they are required to run together. We
> are 
> Andy> saying that it is not required or recommended. 

Yes, but I don't want people to think that they have to implement say
static override either. There are even implementations that have just
one mechanism, and that should also be fine.

Stig