Subject: Assert state of upstream interface

From: "Subrata Sa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 22:50:43 -0800

Hi friends,

This is regarding per-interface (S,G)/ (*,G) Assert state (Section
- 4.5, draft-ietf-pim-sm-v2-new-03). 

The draft says that a router must keep track of Assert information 
on upstream interfaces in order to send joins and prunes to the proper 
neighbor. I understand this reason behind tracking Assert on upstream
interface.

The Assert state machines also show state transitions (NI/ L/ W) on 
upstream
interface if AssertTrackingDesired is true. I do not understand why it
is necessary to maintain such a state for an upstream interface! After 
all
router is not going to forward multicast data packets to RPF interface.

Let me know the benefits (if any).

Thanks!

-Subrata

_____________________________________________________________
Tired of limited space on Yahoo and Hotmail?
Free 100 Meg email account available at http://www.dacafe.com

---

From: "Jyotheeswara Rao Kurma" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 11:32:39 +0500

> Let me know the benefits (if any).

   At any point of time, this state will be either in NO_INFO, or 
ASSERT_LOOSER state, and more over you have to track the assert winner,
to send your up stream J/P messages, ( asert state, to be generic for 
all interfaces, i.e irrespective of down stream/upstream, contains state
also, and for the up stream interface , two possible values, NO_INO,
LOOSER ( a router cann't win assert  on upstream intf ..), so you need 
to store, whether you are assert looser, or no info ...

I guess it is just one varible, so no point in having two separate 
assert  state structs ( one for up stream/ one for down stream )..

Thanks,
Jyotheesh.