IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pim] RFC 4541 - 224.0.0.*

Anish Peter <anish.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 09 November 2018 06:28 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 6C1DD130DE9 for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 22:28:01 -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 E7eMie5yindJ for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 22:27:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua1-x92a.google.com (mail-ua1-x92a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::92a]) (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 7A876130DDA for <pim@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 22:27:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua1-x92a.google.com with SMTP id d8so267800ual.2 for <pim@ietf.org>; Thu, 08 Nov 2018 22:27:59 -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=2v5bcfDntPlpwdJsJbHEEDRiSja4oYYadb26F/EZFgg=; b=D6DMkmTklKJO8ouhg1xbHzpmRau9MhYAeKh4uzfJ+HolJWEPyoj1hQiQUoPSs/phqx 5LYyQfKWBrBcR6J7/YGR0Hc4dEk4YagAPHvKss7kFM8RQduPFHrh/mBxb7worSB/p/cs 8JDqGfhXNJ4/WM3ew1ow101m4R6bMc652aLnQ4pmdRNpBG5FjqQpwZmzAq/M5Gj5FOPW gHXo5z2u22WEUWOrHuyuH+xHZJftSO0OZHs7F1FY3P0BlVXQETxOLmdJEj8AK7/G5TkE dCLYzO1k/vHSiBV1MuU1r8wxrWvixyt8lh/z3VykaC2dSk96eBO+q3fSKgzFdGYXolq2 RmxA==
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=2v5bcfDntPlpwdJsJbHEEDRiSja4oYYadb26F/EZFgg=; b=tLEcGWwcI4whtXer9N6yu1JiAjPxEuwKbV6QDgGpFYPWKCPeyKKj3WN+rWcCMfUC0H vX37lqe05DQG1zB/Ew8q1NOkNvD3lMx1tHl1OQt0Ua+BrJ37uf9Vgqqm6c9/fWgXUzAV ma+1R5sw53xX5BFtnq2VsH5X7Wtl3aXkaMsWvEBtld6h5rAL1eCgFukE/n+RoV/SL33q kx7PyykpovuQbiaaXA7AsKX+E9GLbQ6VFqVloANAMGviK3rRaKctMj68Smri169J6kjq ASfFElifjF/CZukQ3uCFfxDiLm1W4thuR0lPf3DZ6lG95jO3zqncV088ViND5v0ChJWy oDGw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gLHuLfEKvaNV3j5r73H8FweJv+CkxeUz91vW8yie3RVz2drxXYG Eviy/HVbDCScXdQWP9T2OCfZ+HcRk6E73nyytKQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5ftszsuFSAzm9u0a26OifMCf6phmHbyNgjbzR0We89Ym091tlFvxxrsMtE2E6L6ygQDVIC2DueP8Ar7eoZE0/s=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:5942:: with SMTP id o2mr2130312uad.53.1541744878692; Thu, 08 Nov 2018 22:27:58 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4228986f516a48a3840838b0c2bb1c6f@BLRX13MDC414.AMER.DELL.COM>
In-Reply-To: <4228986f516a48a3840838b0c2bb1c6f@BLRX13MDC414.AMER.DELL.COM>
From: Anish Peter <anish.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2018 11:57:46 +0530
Message-ID: <CAA6qS9ruAF5yzmE7gPxAV=b+2ixcX2JrnZUw1_QWMYCApPnLNQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ganesh.ChennimalaiSa@dell.com
Cc: pim@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d43130057a3573ac"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/gRK2xrESMU70iPSL5gcDAamGnyQ>
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 06:28:01 -0000

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