Subject: (S,G) rpt

From: Rajesh Nataraja <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 21:21:20 -0700 (PDT)

hi,
can any one explain if such a condition can exist in the case of Pim-SM.
an (S,G) rpt entry with out (*,G) or (*,*,RP) entries.
thanks.
rajesh.

_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/

---

From: "Prashant Jhingran" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 14:40:52 +0530

hi,
     see the meaning of (S, G)RPT entry is that....i have already
established a SPTree for the particular (Source S, G)and thus i want  to
prune the particular source S off the RPtree. Now the formation of such
entry can only result when u are receiving packets from RP, which implies
that u msut have created a (*,G)entry.
        thus i don't think u can have a (S, G)RPT entry without having (*,
G) entry....
regards,
Prashant

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Rajesh
Nataraja
Sent: Friday, 7 September 2001 9:51 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: (S,G) rpt

hi,

---

From: John Zwiebel <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 10:19:58 -0700

> an (S,G) rpt entry with out (*,G) or (*,*,RP) entries.

Its an implementation question.
Source Specific Multicast will _usually_ have only the (S,G) entry, but
some implementations have to build a (*,G) entry with a NULL olist to
set up the correct data structures.

> _______________________________________________
> Pim-external mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://mailist.procket.com/mailman/listinfo/pim-external

---

From: Mark Handley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 11:17:40 -0700

>an (S,G) rpt entry with out (*,G) or (*,*,RP) entries.

In the current PIM I-D, the (S,G,rpt) downstream state machine doesn't
forbid having (S,G,rpt) prune state without (*,G) join state.

However, if you look at the state machine and pseudo-code for sending
(S,G,rpt) prune messages, you'll see that you don't ever send an
(S,G,rpt) prune (either triggered or periodic) unless you're also
sending (*,G) join state to the same upstream neighbor.  

So, in practice, if everyone conforms to the spec, you won't ever see
this condition.

Cheers,
	Mark