IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pim] RFC 4541 - 224.0.0.*

Anish Peter <anish.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 09 November 2018 08:46 UTC

Return-Path: <anish.ietf@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 66848127332 for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 00:46:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 qDjUOwJByhNk for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 00:46:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua1-x930.google.com (mail-ua1-x930.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::930]) (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 E5EBA124408 for <pim@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 00:46:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua1-x930.google.com with SMTP id v24so351541uap.13 for <pim@ietf.org>; Fri, 09 Nov 2018 00:46:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ITcDZ0GP8h83VB53w97UX0+StQzDiD5Bt7ncO1nvWSQ=; b=HBJfUgkkcxLNVHGWE/Vc04ERsMfWOMEf3frfFhnf9I9204nNZp1ejOULFuYZc22w5y Uzkiso4pmKH1OloGQB6Zz4Cs+o0auS/kJcPwQC3MSB5q9W911gOZaOxJaIzSQcqcH2kK LaxWzXnowqIY0Xh9q9kPrpR+A8R8vcDjyoO9HLBJ2MsDVb77xPkn4OlH/vdt38P2BgCp WTQ0tdMZ8EItqrAjFV/VP79zjSBYGUuxPIj8Lvl4iJHgejRSmEYPS+/tY9XL2K7nv+Jr uYd0YLWW3bICb2Kxwfc+8IWFDbPCW9nPobtbxWCPvd0msnIJuYOwi/QLUxPgBJADmquQ s9YQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ITcDZ0GP8h83VB53w97UX0+StQzDiD5Bt7ncO1nvWSQ=; b=ZA9f26Kpu0NMaRoXl0Ymgs6GNcM6unTgdn57/cnIP8AIXACqZBrvyrnOkxP53HDOCm X9Az1/okRlgkniZvmiGl7PUbEt775wqjem4+OsGb1zGX076H8m2vBgIviGgosSJUQ+DF y6kEXOVc/o+mG8NFIFFd+dfAoMswuD1QTt55lW8PleTPqvlOKpzfTHqm0DKOeJ+BOb6S ZdTQ/PVhAZhPKEW/XN68R7FBiVlkszMPisJ0088Hp2dqfu/a45xTYWz4EF2tp3FH2web hCezymLqtkxNCzpDldqNcYfmbWY69IC/J/Rj/HGVtXHlFrsyVuEaf7EV+eZVJGdWWfUS 5EbA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gLf5i2CEFp1/BdPCbx5OzE3tSoK8Rg8aku37GArArLxmaW5i195 2cfqyEE2Xsy1+z61+tqYRHHTNvcPj0PC7A0gsIA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5dhEbmu+cc0r4bc/0lYD+0KuIm8/280dBo388eqh6HQm51eMnu9PmBKFanutWXR7mKrJjmQZYxQzrCaeiYBqEU=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:5942:: with SMTP id o2mr2277397uad.53.1541753175078; Fri, 09 Nov 2018 00:46:15 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4228986f516a48a3840838b0c2bb1c6f@BLRX13MDC414.AMER.DELL.COM> <CAA6qS9ruAF5yzmE7gPxAV=b+2ixcX2JrnZUw1_QWMYCApPnLNQ@mail.gmail.com> <50c6ec889ce24e41a53d4da487101399@BLRX13MDC414.AMER.DELL.COM>
In-Reply-To: <50c6ec889ce24e41a53d4da487101399@BLRX13MDC414.AMER.DELL.COM>
From: Anish Peter <anish.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2018 14:16:02 +0530
Message-ID: <CAA6qS9pSA8Jw7+w2_7HDibjYs7+8yZ56M3BNWZX1U6rF35CEHg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ganesh.ChennimalaiSa@dell.com
Cc: pim@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000054fc95057a376284"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/SGpZSBHEbVLpCHPnzmGgWvOdnw0>
Subject: Re: [pim] RFC 4541 - 224.0.0.*
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: Fri, 09 Nov 2018 08:46:19 -0000

Hi Ganesh,
 There would be many cases where this optimization could become
sub-optimal.
 For instance if a routers states are cleared (fully or partially), it may
need a mechanism to relearn. For which the switch/application now may be
forced to do additional logic.
 Another case if for two devices commented to different (TOR)switches. In
which case a link flap or device restart may not get propagated to the
second switch.
 In cases that we can imaging like this, this optimization would be
sub-optimal. An application that can handle such dynamics may use an
address range than 224.0.0.x.
 IGMP/MLD behavior is well known to switch so this group is an exception.
 Hope this helps.
Thanks,
Anish


On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 12:04 PM <Ganesh.ChennimalaiSa@dell.com> wrote:

> Hi Anish,
>
>
>
> Thanks for explaining the rationale, I understand that.
>
>
>
> For instance, there is MAC learning it is flooded the first time but after
> MAC is learnt, it is not flooded. Flooding every time is different from
> flooding the first time.
>
>
>
> regs
>
> Ganesh
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Anish Peter <anish.ietf@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, November 9, 2018 11:58 AM
> *To:* ChennimalaiSankaran, Ganesh
> *Cc:* pim@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [pim] RFC 4541 - 224.0.0.*
>
>
>
> Hi Ganesh,
>
>  The one of the primary reason for using 224.0.0.x range is to do
> discovery on the link-local scope. This discovery is many cases are
> required even before multicast learning can happen.
>
>  Hence the switch the ideal switch behavior is for flood them.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Anish
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 6:25 AM <Ganesh.ChennimalaiSa@dell.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Looking at RFC4541 and specifically the discussion 2..1.2 (2) on data
> forwarding rules. It says
>
>
>
> “Packets with a destination IP (DIP) address in the 224.0.0.X range
>
>       which are not IGMP must be forwarded on all ports.”
>
>
>
> As I see, there may not be explicit joins in this range and looking at
> IANA registry most protocols look chatty.
>
>
>
> Are there any groups with silent listeners that use this range ?
>
>
>
> regs
>
> Ganesh
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email