Subject: [pim] pim-port 05 changes

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 12:40:10 -0800

I just posted version 05,
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pim-port-05

There are quite a lot of changes based on the wglc input and the recent
discussions on the list.

I will try to summarize the changes here. Those of you that provided
comments, and hopefully the rest of you as well, please have a look and
see if you are happy with this. Let me know of any issues.

Thanks a lot for all your input, I certainly feel the document
quality is significantly improved.

1. PIM Hello format

We previously had an Interface ID field in the TCP and SCTP Hello
options. After some discussions with people that may also need an
Interface ID, I figured that it is better to have a separate Hello
option. E.g. if we include both TCP and SCTP Hello options, why
include Interface ID twice in the Hello. Similarly if other protocols
need it, it would be a shame to include the ID several times in the
Hello. See the new draft
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gulrajani-pim-hello-intid-00
for definition of an Interface ID option. For PORT we just say that
if the Hello includes the TCP or SCTP option, then it MUST also
contain the Interface ID option.

2. PORT Join/Prune message format

I was asked to remove Instance ID since we don't know how we would
use it. I change the format to using options, so that we can add
things like Instance ID later if we find a use for it. I then
decided to have a single PORT Join/Prune message that contains
an option for PIM J/P. There are different options for IPv4 and
IPv6. I made it an option partly because I want a length field
for the PIM J/P.

3. Keep-alive message

Based on the recent discussions I added a keep-alive message.
Rather than mandating that PORT messages are sent at a certain
frequency, I specified a holdtime field. If no PORT messages are
received within the holdtime, the connection should be taken
down. Note that keep-alive messages need not be sent if other
PORT messages are sent frequently enough.

4. TTL check (GTSM)

MUST send with TTL of 255. Optional to verify when receiving.

5. Improved text

Other than that I've tweaked various text based on your
input, and things I also figured were not clear enough.
This includes IANA and Security considerations.

Stig

---

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 12:42:17 -0800

> see if you are happy with this. Let me know of any issues.
[...]

For changes you may also check the diff at
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pim-port-05.txt

Stig