Subject: [magma] MSNIP capabilities announcement and MRD

From: Jim Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 23:40:20 -0800

Gentlepeople,
	In a discussion after the meeting, it came up that using MRD to 
announce MSNIP capabilities poses a fundamental problem, since we're 
now sending MRD messages to the new "All-Snoopers" group. Since the end 
hosts presumably wouldn't join this group, they wouldn't get the 
information. If all hosts join the group, we might as well just use 
All-Systems.

	What this brings up is the question of what the scope of MRD should 
be. If it's just for switches to learn who the current multicast 
routers are, and what some of their configuration values are, then 
carrying MSNIP is out of scope. If the scope is to carry a wide variety 
of information about multicast routers to all hosts (including 
switches) on-link, then we should revert to using All-Systems and 
definitely need the extensible options mechanism.

	My personal position is that MRD should have the more limited scope, 
solving the problem for switches.  We have other mechanisms (DHCP, RA, 
etc) to provide configurations to end hosts.

	Opinions?

	- Jim

_______________________________________________
magma mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/magma

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 00:22:08 -0500

Jim Martin wrote:

> announce MSNIP capabilities poses a fundamental problem, since we're now 
> sending MRD messages to the new "All-Snoopers" group. Since the end 
> be. If it's just for switches to learn who the current multicast routers 
> are, and what some of their configuration values are, then carrying 
> MSNIP is out of scope. If the scope is to carry a wide variety of 
> information about multicast routers to all hosts (including switches) 
> on-link, then we should revert to using All-Systems and definitely need 
> the extensible options mechanism.
> 

<WG chair hat off>

Hopefully people will be able to hear me over all the other messages
on the list about this subject. :)

I have worked myself to the side of separating MSNIP from MRD.  We
should keep MRD simple and let it do what it was designed to do,
allow switches to discover who is a multicast router.

Given that, we need to go back and look at how to offer MSNIP
functionality without piggy-backing it on MRD.  Are we looking
at a RTS/CTS-like set of messages?

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 00:22:08 -0500

<WG chair hat off>

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Jim Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 23:54:14 -0800

On Mar 2, 2004, at 11:43 PM, Pekka Savola wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Brian Haberman wrote:
> I totally agree with Brian and Jim -- the purpose of the MRD revamp
> was to remove the kitchen sink effect.  Let's not add it back :)

	Anyone want to argue another point of view on this? Thus far we all 
seem to be agreeing...

> Could this be plugged on top of IGMP/MLD messages similar to MRD was?
> Seems like a logical place..

	Oddly enough, that was the subject of a discussion that Brian, Isidore 
and I just had. I was proposing a new IGMP/MLD message with the 
explicit goal of distributing multicast router specific information to 
all hosts. It would probably have a TLV format to allow various types 
of information (MSNIP being the first) to be sent.

	Thoughts?

	- Jim

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 09:43:20 +0200 (EET)

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Jim Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 23:54:14 -0800

Thoughts?

	- Jim

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 09:58:45 +0200 (EET)

> of information (MSNIP being the first) to be sent.

Seems like a very good idea.

---

From: Haixiang He <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 03:06:32 -0500

Jim Martin wrote:

>     Anyone want to argue another point of view on this? Thus far we 
> all seem to be agreeing... 

Add me into the agreeing group..

>     Oddly enough, that was the subject of a discussion that Brian, 
> Isidore and I just had. I was proposing a new IGMP/MLD message with 
> the explicit goal of distributing multicast router specific 
> information to all hosts. It would probably have a TLV format to allow 
> various types of information (MSNIP being the first) to be sent.
>
>     Thoughts? 

With the SSM ranges issue is gone, the only thing that MSNIP needs the 
capability discovery. So why not just built that function into MSNIP. 
IMHO, a new message with TLV format is an overkill if it is only used 
for MSNIP.

haixiang

---

From: Haixiang He <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 03:06:32 -0500

haixiang

---

From: Isidor Kouvelas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 00:15:59 -0800

Yes I agree that this is a better way to go than adding TLVs to MRD.
And Jim just agreed to do the draft :-)

Isidor

---

From: Haixiang He <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 10:27:04 -0500

Can you explain why you can't or you are unwilling to build MSNIP 
capability discovery function in MSNIP? Thanks.

haixiang

---

From: Haixiang He <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 10:27:04 -0500

haixiang

---

From: Isidor Kouvelas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 18:56:02 -0800

That was the way MSNIP originally was but we took it out prefering a
more generic mechanism to advertise multicast router capabilities
(MRD). Now that MRD will not do this any more we could either have a
replacement generic protocol or put it back in MSNIP.
Although I was not the one to iriginally suggest putting the MSNIP
capability option in MRD I agree that a generic mechanism is useful.

Isidor

---

From: Isidor Kouvelas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 18:56:02 -0800

Isidor

---

From: Isidor Kouvelas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 00:15:59 -0800

Isidor

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 09:43:20 +0200 (EET)

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 09:58:45 +0200 (EET)