Re: [pim] IGMP query solicitation message

[gangadhara reddy chavva <[e-mail]>]

Thank You Harvey for the information.

Thanks,
Gangadhar

On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 9:27 PM Harvey <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Gangadhara，
> Please refer to the RFC3376 with the supported messages, you would be able
> to understand the related implementation on the IGMPv3.
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3376
>
>
>
>    There are two IGMP message types of concern to the IGMPv3 protocol
>    described in this document:
>
>       Type Number (hex)   Message Name
>       -----------------   ------------
>
>             0x11          Membership Query
>
>             0x22          Version 3 Membership Report
>
>    An implementation of IGMPv3 MUST also support the following three
>    message types, for interoperation with previous versions of IGMP (see
>    section 7 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3376#section-7>):
>
>            0x12          Version 1 Membership Report    [RFC-1112 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1112>]
>
>            0x16          Version 2 Membership Report    [RFC-2236 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2236>]
>
>            0x17          Version 2 Leave Group          [RFC-2236 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2236>]
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 5:20 AM gangadhara reddy chavva <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Harvey,
>>
>> I could see some vendors are using "Query solicitation" messages (sending
>> IGMP leave with group address 0.0.0.0 ) for faster convergence.
>> this might be working for IGMPv2. what is the method for IGMPv3
>> configured snooping switches, they can still generate V2 leave and expected
>> to receive general query from router? or is there any IGMPv3 query
>> solicitation message.
>> please let me know how to proceed with this for IGMPv3 configured
>> snooping switches.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Gangadhar
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 5:44 PM gangadhara reddy chavva <
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Harvey for the information and the rfc links.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Gangadhar
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 1:54 AM Harvey <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Gangadhar,
>>>> The links below might be worth taking a look at.
>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idmr-igmp-mrdisc-10
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://stevehaskew.blogspot.com/2014/06/igmp-query-solicitation.html#:~:text=As%20well%20as%20flooding%20the,send%20out%20a%20General%20Query.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Hongwei
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 13:07:07 +0530
>>>>> From: gangadhara reddy chavva <[e-mail]>
>>>>> To: [e-mail]
>>>>> Subject: [pim] IGMP query solicitation message
>>>>> Message-ID:
>>>>>         <
>>>>> [e-mail]>
>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>>>> URL: <
>>>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pim/attachments/20200702/9221b844/attachment.htm
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> pim mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
>>>>>
>>>>