Subject: [pim] clarification on RFC 4601 Section 4.8

From: Christopher Affleck <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 21:30:39 -0700

Good Evening,
    I am looking for a little bit of clarification  on section 4.8.1
of RFC 4601.  Is his section optional if my PIM-SM implementation does
not support SSM, or would I be out of conformance with the spec?  In
other words, does this only apply if I implement SSM?

4.8.1.  Protocol Modifications for SSM Destination Addresses

   The following rules override the normal PIM-SM behavior for a
   multicast address G in the SSM range:

   o A router MUST NOT send a (*,G) Join/Prune message for any reason.

   o A router MUST NOT send an (S,G,rpt) Join/Prune message for any
   reason.

   o A router MUST NOT send a Register message for any packet that is
     destined to an SSM address.

   o A router MUST NOT forward packets based on (*,G) or (S,G,rpt)
     state.  The (*,G)- and (S,G,rpt)-related state summarization macros
     are NULL for any SSM address, for the purposes of packet
     forwarding.

   o A router acting as an RP MUST NOT forward any Register-encapsulated
     packet that has an SSM destination address.

Thanks in advance,

Christopher Affleck
[email-masked]

---

From: Indranil Bhattacharya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 12:57:26 +0530

Hi Chistopher,

   I don't think you will be out of conformance. Yes, it applies only if you
implement SSM. The question is that in absence of SSM, how should PIM SM
handle SSM grooup addresses? Are you going to drop pim and igmp messages
carrying ssm groups?

Thanks,
Indranil

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Christopher Affleck <[email-masked]
> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
>

---

From: christopher affleck <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 06:06:56 -0700

Indranil,
      I appreciate your quick response.  At this point, I am not 
planning on dropping PIM and IGMP messages carrying SSM groups.  Should 
I?  What is the right thing to do?

Christopher Affleck

On 08/03/2010 12:27 AM, Indranil Bhattacharya wrote:
> Hi Chistopher,
>    I don't think you will be out of conformance. Yes, it applies only 
> if you implement SSM. The question is that in absence of SSM, how 
> should PIM SM handle SSM grooup addresses? Are you going to drop pim 
> and igmp messages carrying ssm groups?
> Thanks,
> Indranil
>
> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Christopher Affleck 
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     Good Evening,
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Indranil Bhattacharya <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 01:29:22 +0530

I think dropping the SSM groups will be the right thing to do. This will
avoid interoperability problems.

Thanks,
Indranil

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 6:36 PM, christopher affleck
<[email-masked]>wrote:

> Indranil,
>      I appreciate your quick response.  At this point, I am not planning on
> dropping PIM and IGMP messages carrying SSM groups.  Should I?  What is the
> right thing to do?
>
> Christopher Affleck
>
>
>
>    I don't think you will be out of conformance. Yes, it applies only if
> you implement SSM. The question is that in absence of SSM, how should PIM SM
> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Christopher Affleck <
> [email-masked]> wrote:
>
>> Good Evening,