IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pim] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang-08

Hitoshi Asaeda <asaeda@ieee.org> Fri, 16 December 2022 02:10 UTC

Return-Path: <asaeda@ieee.org>
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 4190DC13A064 for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Dec 2022 18:10:41 -0800 (PST)
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, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ieee.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Duoxrmp2TU6K for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Dec 2022 18:10:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pl1-x62f.google.com (mail-pl1-x62f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62f]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 306C9C13A063 for <pim@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Dec 2022 18:10:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pl1-x62f.google.com with SMTP id d15so912799pls.6 for <pim@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Dec 2022 18:10:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ieee.org; s=google; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=2vdDFdbiPufoMS7PAhLq4VMpqOouWKsx7LE01+APs6A=; b=T0/Aqg5pAd0+Tc0duxSnPh/VJf3gN/GeM9fHh/ToPGMHmugykjoFM+1Zd+d+iuAPjI 0si3W+eB3YUTYjYS5Qd1+MM2dKAFGzvIPH887Of5EsO7U5XsW4Q2yr2XVaMVbBJIbV0L KpXI9tuIdgDrA2m7hsfurQdtxMH+C0fCBPa1M=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=2vdDFdbiPufoMS7PAhLq4VMpqOouWKsx7LE01+APs6A=; b=jbrRXoP24u6W+rs/csM4txZTvlF75uvLz2rLhB+asJyw2jyTkiGxAs+YU+RbVINXZJ V6wLcHseB0MXURaKw2ckUsS2qNmBiwMBesjhAq2XnEqpj3ZwjjD627UwOC7ALCgpfhCs ciTV83LF0llR10oSNNanFmBYrLch5RAqEu8GdboYVmMGA9dciCV5GKD5jhLl57tEZrc7 UXe5e6P/ARX+nULYGM0q33z7qiYUcirIO07t+9/5Dr/N7vp5VyqAM3pEjFiSqzpNqGhU 2tKWllECCPQe8cpJYILcMIBkeihmoxrROwpK4FQiCEzNx0oAy1E350e0NMYD7qtvihgW gT0w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pnwj3qkMkVDc39CUqdbBX7ueiIdoIWuw8he3bjWWc6YMESZ1WoY ewsfZip8jscoJhz46/uEaMkPNA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf5lKnsc1gFpXsOQwP454Qs7ubniLLhSUOgbQSglQjw5+QuXafYhf1zdR35A0EV3gQAxRdpXBA==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:cf0f:b0:189:d193:91ff with SMTP id i15-20020a170902cf0f00b00189d19391ffmr33915158plg.61.1671156636462; Thu, 15 Dec 2022 18:10:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (zz20164245726F66C1A1.userreverse.dion.ne.jp. [111.102.193.161]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g1-20020a170902868100b0016d9b101413sm294100plo.200.2022.12.15.18.10.34 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 15 Dec 2022 18:10:36 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.1\))
From: Hitoshi Asaeda <asaeda@ieee.org>
In-Reply-To: <AS2PR07MB897905A0431F21EA81B7C80996E19@AS2PR07MB8979.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2022 11:10:33 +0900
Cc: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang.all@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A4FFE8C1-70A0-4B82-90F5-CD7C84F90279@ieee.org>
References: <167085774389.46516.11191563565611967392@ietfa.amsl.com> <AS2PR07MB897905A0431F21EA81B7C80996E19@AS2PR07MB8979.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
To: Hongji Zhao <hongji.zhao=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/Vo0a9xabTSpjip8vymnRQtKs50E>
Subject: Re: [pim] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang-08
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 16 Dec 2022 02:10:41 -0000

Hi,

> For example, group-address  "233.252.0.23" has two source-addresses, which are 192.0.2.1 and 192.0.3.1. The 192.0.2.1 is include mode, and the 192.0.3.1 is in exclude mode.

INCLUDE and EXCLUDE modes does not coexist in a single multicast address. So above explanation seems wrong.
In your example, if you register 192.0.2.1 with INCLUDE, the application using the group-address 233.252.0.23 only receives content sent from 192.0.2.1(so that content sent from 192.0.3.1 is not received). If you register 192.0.3.1 with EXLUDE, the application using the group-address 233.252.0.23 receives content sent from all node except 192.0.3.1 (so that content sent from 192.0.2.1 is received).

Regards,

Hitoshi


> On Dec 15, 2022, at 16:42, Hongji Zhao <hongji.zhao=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Susan,
> 
> Thanks a lot for your comments.
> 
> "filter-mode" may be either INCLUDE or EXCLUDE. In INCLUDE mode, reception of packets sent to the specified multicast address is requested *only* from those IP source addresses listed in the
> source-list parameter. In EXCLUDE mode, reception of packets sent to the given multicast address is requested from all IP source addresses *except* those listed in the source-list parameter [RFC 3376].
> 
> Generally there are more than one source-address for a group-address. Some source-addresses are include mode, and others are exclude mode.
> 
> For example, group-address  "233.252.0.23" has two source-addresses, which are 192.0.2.1 and 192.0.3.1. The 192.0.2.1 is include mode, and the 192.0.3.1 is in exclude mode.
> 
> 
> 
> BR/Hongji
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Susan Hares via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> 
> Sent: 2022年12月12日 23:09
> To: rtg-dir@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang.all@ietf.org; last-call@ietf.org; pim@ietf.org
> Subject: Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang-08
> 
> Reviewer: Susan Hares
> Review result: Has Issues
> 
> Revew: Document is readable and matches Yang for 1.1. 
> Status: 1 issue
> 
> Is it possible that deployments for the filter-mode be require both INCLUDE and EXCLUDE (see pages. 6, 7 and grouping state-group-attribute)? 
> 
> The text says "INCLUDE" or "EXCLUDE".  It would be good to know why the authors felt consider the "choice" statement where both "INCLUDE" and "EXCLUDE" would not be possible. 
> 
> Is this due to the normal situation for IGMP-proxy and MLD-Proxy in most deployed? 
> What would happen if both were needed?  How can choice be part of an augmentation? 
> 
> Also, this review did not consider the automated tools review. 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email