Subject: RE: W bit

From: [email-masked] (Billy Ng)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 15:49:15 -0400

> From [email-masked] Wed Oct 13 15:28:28 1999
> 
> > AFAIK rfc2362 didn't explicitly talk about s,g joins to the RP, but I
> > seem to remember an email where Dino confirmed that s,g.rpt joins
> > toward the RP should be supported.
> > 
> 
>   <S, G>RPT joins are at least useful in overriding <S, G>RPT prunes. 
>   Sending <*, G>join to override has unwanted effect of getting all 
>   other pruned <S, G> data too.
> 
>   - Ravi Shekhar. 
> 

This is not true.  Other (S,G)RPTs are still in the same packet with
the (*,G), so no unwanted traffic for other flows.  I do not see other
reasons for having a (S,G)RPT join.

--Billy

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:47:32 -0700 (PDT)

> reasons for having a (S,G)RPT join.

is there a good reason not to, otherwise why restrict it?   someone
may have a reason to pull a specific source from the RP (igmpv3,
perhaps), source aggregation, etc.

- rusty

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 15:03:01 -0700 (PDT)

[email-masked] states:
> 
> 
> is there a good reason not to, otherwise why restrict it?

also Ravi's arguments are convincing.

- rusty