Subject: Re: PIM -SM and DVMRP : flooding issue

From: Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 13:18:54 -0700

I assumed that DVMRP conditional flooding included tracking DVMRP prunes
on multi-access interfaces, since DVMRP conditional flooding requires
keeping per-neighbor per-route state, and Cisco's reason for not tracking
DVMRP prunes on multi-access interfaces was that they didn't want to
keep per-neighbor per-route state.  However, it's possible that this
assumption is incorrect, and the Cisco is performing its historical
behavior of ignoring DVMRP prunes on multi-access interfaces.

Remember that Cisco is proud to not implement the DVMRP protocol,
only "DVMRP interoperability".  Since they define what "DVMRP
interoperability" means, it's hard to say they're doing it wrong.

  Bill

---

From: Beau Williamson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 15:50:21 -0500

>interoperability" means, it's hard to say they're doing it wrong.

Well, this is one area where Dino added some code just before he left to actually maintain some per DVMRP neigbhor pruning state.  I just don't know which code releases it made it into.

Beau

---

From: Yiqun Cai <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 15:00:06 -0700 (PDT)

> Well, this is one area where Dino added some code just before he left to actually maintain some per DVMRP neigbhor pruning state.  I just don't know which code releases it made it into.

It has been there since 12.1. 

-- 
Yiqun

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 16:28:31 -0700

>> Well, this is one area where Dino added some code just before he left to actually maintain some per DVMRP neigbhor pruning state.  I just don't know which code releases it made it into.

    It wasn't right before I left. It was a year or so before I left, but it
    didn't make it into a release for that long.

Dino