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

On Apr 5, 2012, at 10:08 PM, Mahesh Akula wrote:

> >>   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.

After reading the protocol section again, I think I agree with you here and will accommodate the above in yet another revision.

> 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.

Capturing one is better than all of them, which I think was one of your original issues in this thread. The thought here was to record at least one so that a manager can do some correlation when there's multicasting going on. If a multicast is being forwarded, some additional data on why it's being forwarded would be useful. A switch need only know of one alive on a port, in order to continue multicasting on that port. You're not normally going to have lots of multicast routers on every link in any case. Given your first suggestion, we could add rbridgeSnoopingPortAddrType to the INDEX, thus allowing a single object to be returned per instance: the address of the router. What do you think?

Regards,
Anil

_______________________________________________
rbridge mailing list
rbridge@postel.org
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/rbridge