IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pim] RFC 4541 - 224.0.0.*

<Ganesh.ChennimalaiSa@Dell.com> Fri, 09 November 2018 06:34 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 30368130DF3 for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 22:34:38 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 3m1ziuq-Sksk for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 22:34:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from esa6.dell-outbound.iphmx.com (esa6.dell-outbound.iphmx.com [68.232.149.229]) (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 E9F28130DDA for <pim@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Nov 2018 22:34:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dell.com; i=@dell.com; q=dns/txt; s=smtpout; t=1541745275; x=1573281275; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=S+eXWxRs1PPGWUTDkjF2GOY8hnNpzL9XrmbMfwlv7kw=; b=rkbnp7Elra3uFMkcJxBgUeVBTcsXhMWxUn+z9KTP+ONT3y8M18+EEoGC rWF/xpbEnGOVOG+/MSdrH0i1K/DdnyH1ze/BNpCh2MSPcYfuozIoWzHRQ BLwzZA9wyrJP4+9SlVaT9zMkGiTSYNLzqlb/pqrAwOoqDQ615KvQN1dvc A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A2EQAAAwKeVbhiWd50NkHAEBAQQBAQcEAQGBUQcBAQsBgQ2BXHASJwqDbogYX40piQSOLoF6CwEBGAEKCQKEPgIXgyQ0DQ0BAwEBAgEBAgEBAhABAQEKCQsIKSMMgjYiEi8cPgEBAQEBAVACRCwBAQEBAwEBEBEKQAELEAIBCBEEAQEoAwICAh8GHwkIAQEEDgUIGoJ/AYEdTAMUAQ+cEAKBEIlYAQEBboEuiAENghQFjhCBEYMSgUGBFUUBAYFvKBeCN4JXApRvii0uBwKNbYMjIJBsgnOLMYklAgQCBAUCFIFDYIEucFCCbII1iGeFPkExgSiLDAGBHgEB
X-IPAS-Result: A2EQAAAwKeVbhiWd50NkHAEBAQQBAQcEAQGBUQcBAQsBgQ2BXHASJwqDbogYX40piQSOLoF6CwEBGAEKCQKEPgIXgyQ0DQ0BAwEBAgEBAgEBAhABAQEKCQsIKSMMgjYiEi8cPgEBAQEBAVACRCwBAQEBAwEBEBEKQAELEAIBCBEEAQEoAwICAh8GHwkIAQEEDgUIGoJ/AYEdTAMUAQ+cEAKBEIlYAQEBboEuiAENghQFjhCBEYMSgUGBFUUBAYFvKBeCN4JXApRvii0uBwKNbYMjIJBsgnOLMYklAgQCBAUCFIFDYIEucFCCbII1iGeFPkExgSiLDAGBHgEB
Received: from mx0b-00154901.pphosted.com (HELO mx0a-00154901.pphosted.com) ([67.231.157.37]) by esa6.dell-outbound.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA256; 09 Nov 2018 00:34:34 -0600
Received: from pps.filterd (m0089484.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00154901.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id wA96XGBY109758 for <pim@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 01:34:33 -0500
Received: from esa4.dell-outbound2.iphmx.com (esa4.dell-outbound2.iphmx.com [68.232.154.98]) by mx0b-00154901.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2nn2e3rmbt-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <pim@ietf.org>; Fri, 09 Nov 2018 01:34:33 -0500
From: Ganesh.ChennimalaiSa@Dell.com
Received: from ausc60pc101.us.dell.com ([143.166.85.206]) by esa4.dell-outbound2.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA256; 09 Nov 2018 12:34:32 +0600
X-LoopCount0: from 10.166.132.198
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,482,1534827600"; d="scan'208,217";a="1323548772"
To: anish.ietf@gmail.com
CC: pim@ietf.org
Thread-Topic: [pim] RFC 4541 - 224.0.0.*
Thread-Index: AdRwHDMSth3vT0DvSqO62V5EMW7XggHqwcsAAAuQa2A=
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2018 06:34:28 +0000
Message-ID: <50c6ec889ce24e41a53d4da487101399@BLRX13MDC414.AMER.DELL.COM>
References: <4228986f516a48a3840838b0c2bb1c6f@BLRX13MDC414.AMER.DELL.COM> <CAA6qS9ruAF5yzmE7gPxAV=b+2ixcX2JrnZUw1_QWMYCApPnLNQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA6qS9ruAF5yzmE7gPxAV=b+2ixcX2JrnZUw1_QWMYCApPnLNQ@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: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_50c6ec889ce24e41a53d4da487101399BLRX13MDC414AMERDELLCOM_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-11-08_13:, , 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-1811090061
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/okexsXLu94SmRjy6MxKTYxG_fKs>
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 06:34:38 -0000

Hi Anish,

Thanks for explaining the rationale, I understand that.

For instance, there is MAC learning it is flooded the first time but after MAC is learnt, it is not flooded. Flooding every time is different from flooding the first time.

regs
Ganesh


From: Anish Peter <anish.ietf@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, November 9, 2018 11:58 AM
To: ChennimalaiSankaran, Ganesh
Cc: pim@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [pim] RFC 4541 - 224.0.0.*

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<mailto: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<mailto:pim@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status