Subject: Interop Event Report

From: "Hattig, Myron" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:08:41 -0700

Below is the report garneted by Larry Cleeton, Microsoft host of interop
event.
Thanks for hosting and the trip report, Larry!!!  In addition there are a
few
follow-up questions about MCAP implementations. The report and the questions
are
important for advancing RFC 2734 from Draft Standard to Proposed Standard.
Participants, please read the report for accuracy and answer the MCAP
questions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report:
An IP/1394 interoperability test event was held on March 16th and 17th, 2000
at the Microsoft Redmond campus.

Attendees:

Microsoft, Sony, NEC, Enthink, Zayante
Two key contributors to the IP/1394 effort were also present: Myron Hattig
and Peter Johansonn.

Tested Scenarios:

* Basic connectivity among IP/1394 peers: static ip; pings; large pings.
* Home: Internet access and private network access via VPN using Windows
  Millennium Edition ICS (NAT).
* Office: Interconnectivity (file transfer) and corpnet access (via VPN)
  using Windows 2000 server with NAT and DHCP.
* Multicast: Multicast connectivity using default broadcast channel, as well
  as passive and active MCAP.

Implementations tested:

* Three separately developed Windows implementations.
* Two separately developed VxWorks implementations
* One FreeBSD implementation.

Issues Discovered:

Some interoperability issues with DHCP need to be investigated further.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCAP questions:
These questions are for those that implemented MCAP for the last interop
test.
If you want details of your implementation to remain secret, respond to me
personally and I'll repost to the reflector without identifying the
implementation. Here are the questions:

What parts of MCAP spec did you implement? What parts were successfully
tested? If not successful, what was the source of the problem? the spec
or the implementation?
1) channel mapping owner
2) mcast source but not channel mapping owner
3) mcast receiver
4) changing mapping ownership during the last 30 seconds of ownership

What other cases are important?

-myron

---

From: "G. Nagaraj" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 08:34:41 +0530

Thanks for clarifying Myron,

I did not really see the posting. I just did a reply and not a reply-all and
it came to you only.

Now on the questions, by the phrase mcast source, do you mean a transmitter?
If so, then it is OK. I was thinking mcast source to be the mcast group
owner. If I am wrong, please excuse me.

I did the interop with SONY and NEC for these cases. In the last interop
Microsoft had implemented passive MCAP without taking over the channel
ownership (as I have understood from Joseph. If this assumption is wrong,
Joseph can clarify).

We did the testing by using standalone applications on each side. These
applications caused the MCAP to be invoked by sending and receiving data on
specific MCAST addresses. We could test all the conditions successfully. It
might have been useful if we could have had an actual multicast application
rather than test applications which just send and receive data on MCAST
addresses.

Hope I have answered the questions.

Nagaraj

-----Original Message-----
From: Hattig, Myron [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 9:46 PM
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: Interop Event Report

Nagaraj,

2) below is a precursor to 4) because there cannot be any transfer of
ownership unless
there are multiple sources. Because 2) is a precursor to 4) let's not worry
about 2).

Did you interop test with anyone else on 1) 3) 4)?

Was your testing done by an app that actually relied on mcast and caused
MCAP to be invoked or was it a series of command line commands entered by
the user to join and leave mcast groups? It doesn't matter from the
perspective of advancing the spec, but I'm just curious.

Is there some reason you did not want to post to the reflector? If not,
please post with my response.

Thanks,

-myron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: G. Nagaraj [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 8:19 PM
> To: Hattig, Myron
> Subject: RE: Interop Event Report
>
>
> Hi Myron,
>
> My implementation supports 1, 3 & 4. I don't have any
> problems with these.
>
> I did not understand 2 much. What does it mean by MCAST source but not
> channel mapping owner? I did not see such a possibility in
> the RFC. But, is
> it really there? Is it really a required implementation for
> compliance to
> RFC? Or is it an optional feature which mandates a channel
> mapping owner and
> mandates a dependency on that?
>
> Should we discuss more on this topic?
>
> Please reply.
>
> Thanks & Regards,
>
> Nagaraj
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: IETF IP over 1394 Working Group
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Hattig, Myron
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 10:39 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Interop Event Report
>
>