Re: [rbridge] Question on draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-mib-07

Hi Anil,

But there can be both ipv4/ipv6 multicast routers attached to that link
right?

>>   IP multicast data SHOULD only be sent on links where there is either
   an IP multicast router for that IP type (IPv4 or IPv6) or ..

As the idea is to forward the data (and reports) only if there is a router
for that specific IP type, it looks to me it is more important to capture
whether only one IP type of multicast router is attached or both.

Also, as there can be more than one multicast router of each IP type
attached, capturing only one of them may not serve any purpose IMO.

Regards,
Mahesh

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Anil Rijhsinghani <anil@charter.net> wrote:

> Mahesh,
>
> As the INDEX is rbridgeBasePort, there is a unique entry per port and we
> are only maintaining per port the knowledge that there is at least one
> multicast router, either v4 or v6, and which one it is (useful from a
> management perspective). So it should not return a list of all IP multicast
> router addresses connected per port. The total number of entries in the
> table would be the number of Rbridge ports on which snooping has detected
> an IP multicast router.
>
> Regards,
> Anil
>
> On Apr 5, 2012, at 9:16 PM, Mahesh Akula wrote:
>
> Hi Anil,
>
> I have one question on draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-mib-07.
>
> In rbridgeSnoopingPortTable, I see that we are maintaining for each
> Rbridge port, list of IP Multicast Router addresses connected to that port.
>
> From what I understand from RFC 6325 section 4.7<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6325#section-4.7> ,
> all we care is for each port, are there IP multicast routers connected and
> their types( ipv4/ipv6/both), so that we can pass along reports
> accordingly.  It looks to me all we need is to maintain just one enum per
> port with values (ipv4/ipv6/both).
>
> Why do we need to maintain all IP Multicast router addresses in TRILL MIB?
> Any other reasons?
>
> Regards,
> Mahesh
>
>
>
>
>