Subject: RE: [pim] San Francisco PIM WG meeting minutes

From: Cormier Chris-ACC125 <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:21:01 -0600

Why wouldn't this be a long term solution?
-cgc

-----Original Message-----
From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 1:59 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [pim] San Francisco PIM WG meeting minutes

>> AFAIK, Inverse ND (the generic solution suggested for ipv6) is not
>> widely implemented -- we need some way to fix this in the meantime.
>> Another issue is that Inverse ND works only on links that have link
>> layer addresses. I'm not sure if that will be a limitation for PIM,
>> but would be nice not to have this dependency. Also it looks like the
>> problem might exist in ipv4 and we don't have a generic solution for
>> that.

    I think an even shorter-term solution is to send multiple Hellos with
    different source addresses. Then any router can do the right thing.

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

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:33:48 -0800

>> Why wouldn't this be a long term solution?

    It certainly could. Anything that avoids protocols changes at the expense
    of extra Hello traffic should also be considered a long-term solution too.

Dino