Re: [pim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pim-group-rp-mapping-01.txt

[John Zwiebel <[e-mail]>]

On Jun 25, 2009, at 7:45 AM, [e-mail] wrote:

> This draft is a work item of the Protocol Independent Multicast  
> Working Group of the IETF.
>
> 	Title		: PIM Group-to-RP Mapping
> 	Author(s)	: B. Joshi, A. Kessler, D. McWalter
> 	Filename	: draft-ietf-pim-group-rp-mapping-01.txt
> 	Pages		: 19
> 	Date		: 2009-6-25

FWIW:
Since the hash is the very last thing, I'd prefer that it not be  
removed since its already
there.  Rather change it to a "MAY" requirement.  I'd hate to see it  
removed only to
find it has to be added back in again.

Dense-mode is a problem.  If you are really going to do this reform
I would like to see advertisement of the dense-mode range however you
want to do it.

6.2 You're talking about dense and ssm group ranges.  This doesn't mean
	the RP-type is 'unknown' it means there is no RP.

6.4 talks about being "undefined" doesn't this mean dense-mode?  SSM
	is defined by 232/8 or by statically configuring the ssm-range on  
each router.
	Again, if you're going to go down this path, I'd like the BSR to be  
able to
	advertise an SSM range.  Isn't this the same thing you're talking  
about in 6.2

6.8, There is no way that you can have BSR and Auto-RP interoperate.
	After years of trying and always running into dead ends, there is no  
way
	I could allow this section to remain.  I would prefer that auto-RP  
be decremented.
	Specifically trying to have an RP advertised in both BSR and auto-RP  
really
	gets confused.

I would like to see a decision tree that would more clearly explain  
the choices.
Text-only is too easy to mis-read.