Subject: [pim] Call for agenda items for PIM WG in San Francisco

From: Liming Wei <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 15:47:42 -0800 (PST)

Hi folks,

Please post request for presentation items here, or send
them to me/Tom.

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

---

From: SUZUKI Shinsuke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 17:50:41 +0900

>>>>> On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 15:47:42 -0800 (PST)
>>>>> [email-masked](Liming Wei)  said:

> Please post request for presentation items here, or send

I'd like to make a presentation regarding PIM RPF failure when a
router has multiple addresses on a link.
(now writing a 00-draft, and it'll be available soon)

So could you please give me 10 minutes?

P.S.) But there's no PIM WG session in the current agenda.  Could you
please tell me when you will have this session?

#if it's Friday morning, I have to change my flight...

Thanks,
----
SUZUKI, Shinsuke @ Hitachi / KAME Project
_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
[email-masked]
http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim

---

From: Liming Wei <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 10:20:51 -0800 (PST)

Suzuki,

I'll put you down for 10 minutes. I have sent a request for meeting
slot and will forward the allocation message once we receive the
reply.

The last IETF didn't have Friday sessions, I am not sure if they
will do Friday sessions this time.

Can you post your document here before the meeting week ? At least
send it to Tom and myself before the meeting.

-Liming
---------
> From: SUZUKI Shinsuke <[email-masked]>
>

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:22:33 +0900

>>>>> On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 10:20:51 -0800 (PST), 
>>>>> Liming Wei <[email-masked]> said:

> send it to Tom and myself before the meeting.

Yes, we're almost done on making the draft.  We'll submit it before
the cut-off date for initial submissions (Feb 24).

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]
_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
[email-masked]
http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim

---

From: SUZUKI Shinsuke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:22:44 +0900

Hello all,

>>> At Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:22:33 +0900
>>> [email-masked](JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉) said:

> the cut-off date for initial submissions (Feb 24).

It is available as draft-suz-pim-upstream-detection-00.txt.

This memo describes
	- a PIM routing problem owing to the reverse path forwarding
y	  (RPF) failure on routers having multiple addresses on a link.
	 (quite possible in IPv6, but theoretically possible in IPv4 too)

		           address-A1        PIM neighbor = address-A1
		           address-A2        next-hop to S = address-A2
		S----router-A ------|------- router-B

	- possible four solutions with their pros and cons.

What I want to ask regarding the direction of this document is the
following two things (I'll ask in San Francisco again).

	- Currently it doesn't select the best solution from the
          possible ones.  Should it be determined in this draft, or
          should it be left to implementations?
		Personally I prefer a new PIM Hello Option and a
		operational measure,
		
	- Should it be merged into PIM-SM/DM base spec, or should it
          be a separate document?
		In terms of document management, separate document
		would be better, but I don't have so strong opinion on
		this part.

Other comments/suggestions are welcome, of course.

Thanks,
----

---

From: Pavlin Radoslavov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 20:34:34 -0800

> 		would be better, but I don't have so strong opinion on

In addition to the proposed four solutions in the draft, I'd like to
suggest one more:
If a PIM router has more than one IP address on an interface, it
should send a Hello messages for each IP address (using that address
as the source address of the IP packet). This will create the
appropriate neighborhood state in all other PIM routers on that LAN,
and will eliminate the problem.
However, some of those Hello messages may originate from an address
that is not link-local address, hence the PIM spec needs to be
loosen a bit to allow that.

Though, personally I'd prefer the new PIM Hello Option solution,
because it is cleaner and explicit, and doesn't require loosening
the protocol rules.

Regards,
Pavlin