Subject: Re: [pim] IGMPv3 donations

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 01:12:27 -0700

Liming,

 UDP encapsulation would probably not change the picture much--
 you can open a raw ip socket from a user-level application
 if it has enough permissions.

 If implemented at the user level, the IGMPv3 daemon will need
 to have a (preferably standard) API to get the state from
 the kernel, which means the kernel still needs to be modified.
 One could argue, of course, that this type of change could be
 much simpler than a full implementation of IGMPv3...

-- 
Alex

Friday, May 31, 2002, 10:14:29 AM, you wrote:
> Very interesting Z-atagram :-).

> All this OS-incurred-hardship will be "greatly-removed" if IGMPv3 does
> not have to go into the kernel(s).

> If the current IGMPv3 reports can be encapsulated inside UDP and MUST
> be addressed to the standard IGMP v3 report address (224.0.0.22).
> You would have no need to worry about Linux or FreeBSD or MacOS or
> WindowsXP/2K/98/...

> I remember Hugh Holbrook started his work on SSM on this path but
> dropped it later for some reason.

> -Liming

_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
[email-masked]
http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim

---

From: Liming Wei <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 21:53:57 -0700 (PDT)

Alex,

There is no need to obtain any state from the kernel at all. I.e. no
change in the kernel(s) is needed. All it needs is a set of library 
functions, executed at the user level, reading and sending on the
UDP socket, not raw socket. Just like vat does.

On the other hand, such proposal for rapid deployment can be
meaningless unless there are interests or commitments in
implementing it. If it takes too long to get done, it defeats the
purpose..

I have heard one private response favoring efforts in getting IGMPv3
to be the standard part of all major OSes..

-Liming
-----------
> From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
> 
> Liming,
>

---

From: John Zwiebel <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 09:11:51 -0700

> to be the standard part of all major OSes..

IHNO, but it would seem that there are enough implementations
out there that every major OS shouldn't have that much trouble
getting them into the standard release.

But I could be wrong.

I just want my MTV.  :-)

---

From: Liming Wei <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 10:00:46 -0700 (PDT)

> From: John Zwiebel <[email-masked]>
> 

John, I agree that all the OSes should already have it. It looks more
like release issues. Now we have to see how little trouble there is
in getting those into the standard release :-).

Just to be clear that I don't think it is worth doing the UDP thing
if the major OS'es can get those IGMPv3 patches into the main release(s),
in say, 1 year or so.

-Liming

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 10:28:35 -0700

Liming,

> UDP socket, not raw socket. Just like vat does.

OK, let me ask you some questions to make sure we're
on the same page:

1. Is socket-based API (like in draft-ietf-idmr-msf-api) used
   to enable source filtering and send/receive data?

2. Who maintains socket and interface membership/filtering state?

3. Who sends State-Change Reports?

4. Who replies to received Queries?

Thanks.

Alex

---

From: "Marshall Eubanks" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 13:36:29 -0400

On Mon, 3 Jun 2002 09:11:51 -0700
> On Sunday, June 2, 2002, at 09:53 PM, Liming Wei wrote:

If people are really interested in IGMPv3 donations, we could set
up and administer a paypal account, which is the way on-line
donations are generally done now...

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Liming Wei <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 10:49:23 -0700 (PDT)

>    to enable source filtering and send/receive data?

It could be done without that.

> 2. Who maintains socket and interface membership/filtering state?

For the sake of the discussion, lets say it is not a library with
hidden threads, but a inetd-like daemon, "igmpv3_udp_d". This daemon
opens a raw IP socket taking only IP protocol 2 type packets (all IGMP).

> 3. Who sends State-Change Reports?

"igmpv3_upd_d".

> 4. Who replies to received Queries?

"igmpv3_udp_d" :-).

I have communicated with one of the developer(s) for one IGMPv3 kernel
patch, who indicated on-going efforts to make progress (with team).
I respect his wish to not be swamped with demands/requests at this
stage, or be pinned to deadlines etc. It is non-profit.
If anyone has funding for such projects, please do not not hesitate to
make it known :-).

Let me withdraw my proposal here so that it does not become
a distraction (in terms of attention and resource).

 Thanks,

-Liming

---

From: Liming Wei <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 10:55:39 -0700 (PDT)

Or, it could be a very relevant project for the DOE or DOD to fund.

-Liming
----------
> From: "Marshall Eubanks" <[email-masked]>
>

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 11:01:21 -0700

Liming,

[...]
> a distraction (in terms of attention and resource).

I'll stop asking questions then ;)

Alex