Subject: Re: [pim] PIM WG meeting notes / PIM-Proxy draft

From: "Leymann, Nicolai" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 18:02:39 +0100

Hi,

> 3. In the case of the proxy draft, there was not consensus.
> 
What does this mean for the draft and the working group? As far as
I know it was planned (according to the minutes) to discuss the
topic with the chairs. Are there any news about how to proceed?

The draft provides a solution for a BGP free core for Multicast
which is a topic which has to be addressed from my point of view.
Several ISPs are deploying a BGP free core for unicast and want
to keep it BGP free if multicast is enabled in the network.

  best regards

     Nic

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

---

From: Mike McBride <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 11:42:05 -0800 (PST)

Nic,

> to keep it BGP free if multicast is enabled in the network.

The authors of the draft have agreed to break out the rpf vector portion
of the existing draft-wijnands-pim-proxy-00 and create a new one. This new
draft will address the bgp free core solution that you and others support.
Those opposed to the draft have indicated they will support the draft as
it will no longer address the VPN services.

As far as the Chairs meeting is concerned, we basically agreed to do much
better at communicating with each other. Drafts that are presented to us
in the pim wg that deal with mpls tree building will be discussed between
the wg chairs to decide how to proceed. Same with pim related drafts
presented to mpls and l3vpn wgs.

The p2mp framework draft, that the mboned wg agreed to work on, should
help to provide us all with more understanding of the multipoint service
components and wg's roles. Additionally, Tom and I have an action to
expand our charter and request review from the pim wg.

mike