Re: [pim] Adoption call for draft-zhao-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang-03.txt

Anish Peter <> Thu, 17 October 2019 11:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EA5E1200C5 for <>; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 04:59:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 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_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ly9y1W1ZvcRU for <>; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 04:59:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84E8C1200D8 for <>; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 04:59:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id e19so1362452vsb.12 for <>; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 04:59:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ClZLQuu1X735Bkf530dWBUvLXl1dnVAiPhLObRvhz2k=; b=Tc3YxQAyB0PTEaprVA1+wQZgJsmHFgjfCvUjjXhT/yBwaomNwGdmQf/XNjhCLak1Y7 51aJQOPYh/CzAUjKbaxqeTKDoSVgK2/4zKRhZEwI1XljSGsZ92EY6dOhFQxTOs5D7mDE OnSIfOvVBeLclzoeXpfkP2oT5MTe/P3gwCMnJbMH5uU+I2Bz2jm6tfqMjRDiM3H2IbJE Q2NBy03t/1vX31BpUHfIzdKpjdJFgf2oXt0djf2+QoFc9fZUwKY1lg+WBcgOE3d4x8Sf usD1dO6L4NJ6CDUd7bGb5VzG80eTNKRpWJWPo/xJXeMC8yzGK27WIcOlrJsuaEg4g9x+ B8Mw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ClZLQuu1X735Bkf530dWBUvLXl1dnVAiPhLObRvhz2k=; b=Q3xBgNp0IaiRYlTcZsbaitkcUfBvRQR7U2vvZmmXo7kjzMe/3C53frFulFQBjpheNI h3bkoCayal+uN4NNO0M+YkxU51cak9DWUR5T3Xqs7Zsg5JX86IZD71yuIyxl4dCve51w 4nQHaLuOx/S6vK9aSE3abm5c5FLOipvtRzTeU5U4x/xqIJP87jQgsTU0J5PecEkAHN/d ew40EzG69V8nu/KAkPSj0DpuJnl9QBTz/wai/z2lQudy5IR8n5AA5ImWXgxvTVH0foA3 hRyx+UlubIXGePUH8bLvAgnwm1dVHm6d9XIm3tvRE/4H9ss11D5N98xoC+GuIB72q9ho V+Pw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUoWi1EacbqxGUPvIK4gkKwZMfv+p7NBs65egMJnztADTIKOteo sEdUQVCZzoC0BkajehXwi+Y9S0bNoY37EM03c7CFnebQ
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwzlFLWUf9ZffiEEmzhPbDLhbTMIR7YA7gNfJK5JjIRYJjQz5jOBCSFsoxZkfiPrixeX9vnzGQVuF6/Wi5Kt5o=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:f6d4:: with SMTP id v20mr18156vso.31.1571313568434; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 04:59:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Anish Peter <>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 17:29:17 +0530
Message-ID: <>
To: Stig Venaas <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000013cdc9059519f331"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [pim] Adoption call for draft-zhao-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang-03.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 11:59:31 -0000

Hi Authors,
 I went through the draft and have these comments.

module: ietf-igmp-mld-proxy
  augment /rt:routing/rt:control-plane-protocols/rt:control-plane-protocol:
    +--rw igmp-proxy {feature-igmp-proxy}?
       +--rw interfaces
          +--rw interface* [interface-name]
             +--rw interface-name    if:interface-ref
             +--rw version?          uint8
             +--rw enable?           boolean
AP> upstream igmp message sender source address may be an optional config entity

           +--ro group* [group-address]
                +--ro group-address    inet:ipv4-address
                +--ro up-time?         uint32
                +--ro filter-mode?     enumeration
                +--ro source* [source-address]
                   +--ro source-address          inet:ipv4-address
                   +--ro up-time?                uint32
                   +--ro filter-mode?            enumeration
AP> Do not understand the semantics of this filter-mode? Guess filter
mode stated in the group level alone is relevant
                   +--ro downstream-interface* [interface-name]
                      +--ro interface-name    if:interface-ref
                      +--ro filter-mode?      enumeration

AP> I disagree with this hierarchy. IGMP is a per interface protocols
and source states must be build on per interface basis. Over different
downstream interfaces there are chances for different igmp versions.

AP> Do not understand the semantics of this filter-mode? Guess filter mode
stated in the group level alone is relevant
AP> Do we have some vendor experience with this data model as proxy is
mostly implemented in access/edge devices?


On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 2:01 AM Stig Venaas <> wrote:

> Hi
> As discussed last meeting, we are doing an adoption call for
> draft-zhao-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang-03.txt.
> Please respond by October 25th whether you think this draft should be
> adopted as a WG item.
> Stig
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list