IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pim] RFC 4541 - 224.0.0.*

<Ganesh.ChennimalaiSa@Dell.com> Thu, 08 November 2018 08:40 UTC

Return-Path: <Ganesh.ChennimalaiSa@dell.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 88E4B130F59 for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 00:40:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.17
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.17 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.47, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dell.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 BxntMw0B3rRZ for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 00:40:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from esa7.dell-outbound.iphmx.com (esa7.dell-outbound.iphmx.com [68.232.153.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05FDC130F2D for <pim@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 00:40:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dell.com; i=@dell.com; q=dns/txt; s=smtpout; t=1541666443; x=1573202443; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=lteQNnAlWtCYSblBCQxAf34i0QvsnW4JWckeurR7qwc=; b=lh1Ke+k27fLHdZvULf3ME4lZMtL6ELk+RqL05lkEF7K0c8gEWv6YJtzN ZTPW3RoxD0zaHjJat0RMgqMq63cxFduMHL9WiNm4NjZ5mxdDwyKXV7c0q 7eF8DC3hyNPkTz6JT0tfTVOVE6eJXIGxXw7mdiyf/i1c47yQrdLXddnOX U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A2EaAACV9eNbhiWd50NjGgEBAQEBAgEBAQEHAgEBAQGBUQUBAQEBCwEBgmiBAicKg26IGF+LHIINeoJIk3AUgWYLAQEYCwkChD4CF4J5IjQNDQEDAQECAQECAQECEAEBAQoJCwgpIwxCARABBAGBXSISLxw+AQEBAQEBUAJELAEBAQQBARAREToLDAQCAQgRBAEBAQICJgICAiUgCAgBAQQOBQgagn8BggABD5wNAoEQiVgBAQFugS6KLwWBC4pugheBEYJdNYFBgVoBAYEuARIBDRkxAhOCN4JXAp9EBwKRCiCBV4UBihGCc5RVAgQCBAUCFIFDYD1xcFCCbII1iGeFPkExgSiDcYU1VYEfAYEeAQE
X-IPAS-Result: A2EaAACV9eNbhiWd50NjGgEBAQEBAgEBAQEHAgEBAQGBUQUBAQEBCwEBgmiBAicKg26IGF+LHIINeoJIk3AUgWYLAQEYCwkChD4CF4J5IjQNDQEDAQECAQECAQECEAEBAQoJCwgpIwxCARABBAGBXSISLxw+AQEBAQEBUAJELAEBAQQBARAREToLDAQCAQgRBAEBAQICJgICAiUgCAgBAQQOBQgagn8BggABD5wNAoEQiVgBAQFugS6KLwWBC4pugheBEYJdNYFBgVoBAYEuARIBDRkxAhOCN4JXAp9EBwKRCiCBV4UBihGCc5RVAgQCBAUCFIFDYD1xcFCCbII1iGeFPkExgSiDcYU1VYEfAYEeAQE
Received: from mx0b-00154901.pphosted.com ([67.231.157.37]) by esa7.dell-outbound.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA256; 08 Nov 2018 02:40:43 -0600
Received: from pps.filterd (m0144104.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00154901.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id wA88cxNL088327 for <pim@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 03:40:45 -0500
Received: from esa2.dell-outbound2.iphmx.com (esa2.dell-outbound2.iphmx.com [68.232.153.202]) by mx0b-00154901.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2nmhneg20a-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <pim@ietf.org>; Thu, 08 Nov 2018 03:40:45 -0500
From: Ganesh.ChennimalaiSa@Dell.com
Received: from ausc60pc101.us.dell.com ([143.166.85.206]) by esa2.dell-outbound2.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA256; 08 Nov 2018 14:40:27 +0600
X-LoopCount0: from 10.166.132.195
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,478,1534827600"; d="scan'208";a="1323174133"
To: stig@venaas.com
CC: pim@ietf.org
Thread-Topic: [pim] RFC 4541 - 224.0.0.*
Thread-Index: AdRwHDMSth3vT0DvSqO62V5EMW7XggG8p3oAAAuaW4A=
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2018 08:40:39 +0000
Message-ID: <f627989da6c04780b9b8c2acdf793a13@BLRX13MDC414.AMER.DELL.COM>
References: <4228986f516a48a3840838b0c2bb1c6f@BLRX13MDC414.AMER.DELL.COM> <CAHANBtJ17EjjchmzUjbpDrnPYsSp=+smrS4bnv+BEtPjMnViug@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHANBtJ17EjjchmzUjbpDrnPYsSp=+smrS4bnv+BEtPjMnViug@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [163.244.186.30]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-11-08_04:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1807170000 definitions=main-1811080076
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/ja1ni85EcnGmtl19yyUZFC_xR-o>
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: Thu, 08 Nov 2018 08:40:57 -0000

Hi Stig,

I understand the point. My question is: when all protocols are chatty we theoretically can use an alternate mechanism to learn their existence and forward only to group members. For instance OSPF is chatty and OSPF PDUs can be forwarded only within OSPF routers by leveraging its chatty nature. But when we have passive listeners in a link-local group, there is no opportunity for the network to know about the existence of such receivers. 

Do we have passive receivers (or protocols) in this 224.0.0.* range ?

regs
Ganesh

-----Original Message-----
From: pim <pim-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Stig Venaas
Sent: Thursday, November 8, 2018 1:58 PM
To: ChennimalaiSankaran, Ganesh
Cc: pim@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [pim] RFC 4541 - 224.0.0.*


[EXTERNAL EMAIL] 
Please report any suspicious attachments, links, or requests for sensitive information.


Hi

The problem is that many stacks don't send IGMP reports for link-local
groups, making the assumption that only routers need to know about
membership, and link-local groups are not routed. Hence, you cannot
rely on IGMP to determine which ports have interested receivers.

Stig

On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 4:55 PM <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

_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
pim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email