Subject: RE: [[email-masked]: [pim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pim-anycast-rp-00.txt]

From: Prashant Jhingran <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 10:22:24 +0530

Hi Dino,

I shall try to explain my second point, kindly refer to the diagram on page
2 of the draft.

Consider a case where SDR for a particular source S1 (e.g. S1, G) is also
the anycast RP for the same group G (e.g. RP1 is the RP for group G besides
being SDR for S1, G) or in simple words source S1 (S1, G) and RP for the
group G are directly attached.

In this case since there won't be any Register phase between source (S1) and
the RP (RP1) therefore the RP/SDR (i.e. RP1) has to "explicitly form" a
Register message with the required parameters as specified in the draft and
then forward the same to all the configured anycast RP's (viz. RP2 and RP3).

However in normal circumstances the following holds good:
"RP1 is configured with RP2 and RP3's IP address. It will forward the
Register message from S1's DR to both of them. RP1 will include it's own IP
address as the source address for the PIM Register message."

I would suggest you to include this particular scenario in the draft.

Let me know in case of any ambiguity.

Kind regards,
Prashant Jhingran

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Dino
Farinacci
Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2004 5:25 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: Re: [[email-masked]: [pim] I-D
ACTION:draft-ietf-pim-anycast-rp-00.txt]

>> 1.	Anycast RP address (e.g. RPA) should be different from the addresses
of
>> the routers (e.g. RT1, RT2 and RT3) so that anycast RP's can uniquely
>> identify each other and therefore can send the Register messages to all
the
>> configured anycast RP's for the particular group.

    Sure, I will add this.

>> 2.	Elaborate the scenario when SDR for a particular group is also the
>> anycast RP for the same group.
>> This may remove all the dependencies from the [2] and therefore reader
may
>> be able to understand without reading [2].

    I don't understand your comment. Could you elaboarate a bit more?

    Thanks for the comments Prashant.

Dino

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

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

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 09:37:25 -0800

>> then forward the same to all the configured anycast RP's (viz. RP2 and RP3).

    This is explained in various PIM drafts. Either provision in the 
    implementation must be made to deal with this case, or you generalize
    the mechanism to internally build a Register message and send it to
    yourself (so reecived Register processing is the same for any directly
    connected source -- even when it is yourself).

>> I would suggest you to include this particular scenario in the draft.

    However, this scenario is "when to send Registers" as a functioning DR.
    The PIM draft really has the details to this. The Anycast-PIM draft 
    specifies when and how Registers are *forwarded*.

>> Let me know in case of any ambiguity.

    It is clear now. Thanks.

Dino

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 09:37:25 -0800

It is clear now. Thanks.

Dino