Subject: [pim] some comments to draft-ietf-pim-sm-v2-new-08.txt

From: SUZUKI Shinsuke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:52:00 +0900

Hello all,

There are three comments regarding the interface-address-list option,
which is newly introduced in this new draft.

[editorial comment]
1) section 4.1.6 (p.25)
	Note that a neighbor's IP address may not be unique within the
	                                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
	PIM neighbor database due to scope issues.  The address must
	however be unique amongst the addresses of all the PIM
	neighbors on a specific interface.

I think the underlined part should be "be non-unique". Since "may not
be unique" sounds like "not allowed to be unique", and what is trying
to be mentioned here is "a neighbor's IP address can be different
place by place within the PIM neighbor database".

[clarifications]
2) Section 4.3.1 (p.30)
	"The Interface_Address_List Option SHOULD be included in all
	IPv4 Hello messages and MUST be included in all IPv6 Hello
	messages. This option advertises all the secondary addresses
	associated with the source interface of the router originating
	the message."

Does it mean that it MUST advertise this option with option-len = 0,
even when there's no secondary IPv6 address on a link (i.e. only one
link-local address is assigned)?

I don't think it's a necessary in such a case, so IMHO it would be
better to change this section like this.

	The Interface_Address_List Option MUST be included in all
	Hello messages. This option advertises all the secondary
	addresses associated with the source interface of the router
	originating the message.  If there is no secondary address
	associated with the source interface, this option MAY be
	omitted.

3) Section 4.3.4
	The primary address of the source interface of the router MUST
	NOT be listed within the Address List Hello option.

When the address is included within this Hello option, what should be
discarded on the receiving router?
	a) Whole Hello message
	b) All the interface-address-list option
	c) The primary address included in the interface-address-list option

I think c) is correct, but it's ambiguous from the above description,
so it would be better to add a clarification statement here.

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

---

From: Isidor Kouvelas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:47:07 -0800

>	Note that a neighbor's IP address may not be unique within the

Yes will fix.

>	associated with the source interface, this option MAY be

I will change the text in the spec to reflect you comment.

>so it would be better to add a clarification statement here.

Agree.

Isidor

_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim

---

From: Isidor Kouvelas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:47:07 -0800

Yes will fix.

Agree.

Isidor

---

From: Tom Pusateri <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 16:25:26 -0800

In message <[email-masked]> you write:
>I will change the text in the spec to reflect your comment.

I was thinking it would be great to send the address list hello option
regardless so that it is possible to tell that your neighbors all support it.
This would make it easy to diagnose problems at the border between two
domains.

Tom

---

From: Tom Pusateri <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 16:25:26 -0800

Tom