[pim] Issues with pim registers
Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> Fri, 20 April 2018 19:46 UTC
Return-Path: <stig@venaas.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 0BD3312D870 for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:46:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=venaas-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 8bMbHaPLS3v4 for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:46:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x22f.google.com (mail-wr0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::22f]) (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 58A8312783A for <pim@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:46:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id s18-v6so25748916wrg.9 for <pim@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:46:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=venaas-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=h4h5+Rdk/VUwXR/x6IHdjARXVXz3vojiD1zyS68R5u8=; b=JvIJDcd6qwONz4/iZrd5fZ0li82S54H6DvAHTRMXp08sx5nMipCkG7ju35TJFKuW49 JciQQUbahDi8gsIvroSarUrjrF1leVOMvfMtNyFwD9Sx4GJ2SStFjIdz59ucJGdzkM1w SzvjGMKlhy32H7er8iioVJSKdAag/B4Pm84WZkEpUUptkBf991Kk5oBuqbIa+Kv62b+K 5eSAGJTdT35Wft3R9Wlll/KEn3v/lrLBm5mFYc9SYDi6NgzURN8oh8BYrh2G5oZ/bIjp xZiGxu6+S+Lf6SJRozDUD0avmPRcKx5K/yzeMRufwGztqv7wkYMRH7qXjC5PmKT2vxwY 1eCQ==
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=h4h5+Rdk/VUwXR/x6IHdjARXVXz3vojiD1zyS68R5u8=; b=esMIBdqOoAAyof9Aua3q4CzFLjxwr2qPMorqXnfcDmX+OwB48iBxZh8C/twqCSgLzB FTBTDjlkBgapQidt0NzTjXv0xOs6GdD5eqSX5T1FkzDeAzo2TuxzeSyTUPWFfRiXFCEq Xrn+MUFdtepzlV7Xk1aJoRzxVUHyvgnQvjd2v0wthWD23cXVfvlYqdqcYdahoJOUdOaU mZFGjc/w0gJ4ylWay1cBGiAG+jVLvcUBWXG2IDz7Zg5Lt7zI+vl6tMg9rApiX4+/GRSq R2gxIYPQhc4vFTnUAB8AXEPtYvpb25exzX//0KWOKoXqlfEKYYHX5yKQ9Y+l+NCaDLud qDyQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tA3tEeiIWRcVS3CTbaPMhscc9UyyLGMW3uHDFAosEQXuKOTp0WS Ahpgbut+10UwLq8zlLYPsZww0vC5B26PSO50yRhT4ieeQ4s=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx48Jo5GayETiENjRTzp+sYkcDH5RETn7UncYZms+zSDQ157WkYb9j8EUvAXwnwLB3PYsP2EizSw7hlkvqP61qGY=
X-Received: by 10.80.144.116 with SMTP id z49mr14882836edz.79.1524253578781; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:46:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.80.190.132 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:46:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:46:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHANBt+1=PYBDL-2M+jw4pyH_GGeoEzK1bK7_TcV7CRDbBtUBA@mail.gmail.com>
To: pim@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/QqAMhh_mBUeKNUTQknqFXl8wFdI>
Subject: [pim] Issues with pim registers
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 19:46:22 -0000
Hi, I'm posting this as a WG chair. In the last meeting we had presentations of two drafts proposing alternatives or changes to the existing pim register mechanism, but we didn't have time to discuss them. The drafts were: draft-ramki-pim-null-register-packing draft-anish-reliable-pim-registers It would be great if people can provide comments on the drafts. I also think it could be a good start if we could have a discussion about what problems people are seeing today. What issues motivated the authors to propose these drafts, and what issues are other people seeing with the current pim register mechanism. I believe these mechanisms may also apply to pim anycast-RP, so issues with that could also be interesting to consider. I'm hoping this email can start some discussion. While I'm suggesting discussing pim register issues in particular, any thoughts people have would be more than welcome. Thanks, Stig
- [pim] Issues with pim registers Stig Venaas
- Re: [pim] Issues with pim registers Vikas Ramesh Kamath (vikkamat)
- Re: [pim] Issues with pim registers Anish Peter
- Re: [pim] Issues with pim registers Ramakrishnan Chokkanathapuram (ramaksun)