Subject: RE: [pim] PIM-DM:(S,G) Assert Message State Machine

From: "Nicholas, Jonathan - ACD " <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 08:37:16 -0500

I'm afraid I don't understand your scenario.  What are SDR and SRM?  How is everything connected together?  What is wrong with RT1 being an Assert Loser?

Jonathan Nicholas
Network Systems Engineer
ITT Aerospace/Communications Division

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Prashant Jhingran
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 3:57 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [pim] PIM-DM:(S,G) Assert Message State Machine

Hi All,

This is in reference to PIM-DM rfc 3973

Section: "4.6.4.  (S,G) Assert Message State Machine"

************************************************
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------------
-+
|                                             |            Previous
State                |
|
+------------+------------+------------+
|            Event                      |  No Info   |   Winner   |
Loser  |
+-------------------------------+------------+------------+------------+
| Receive Preferred    | ->L Send   | ->L Send   | ->L  Se    t    |
|    Assert OR             |                    |                     |
|
|   State Refresh         | Prune(S,G) | Prune(S,G) |  AT(S,G,I)  |
|                                    |    Set           |    Set
|                    |
|                                    |  AT(S,G,I)  |    AT(S,G,I)|
|
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------------
--+

***********************************************

Consider the following scenerio [No Receivers]. SDR---------------------RT1-------------------RT2

-> SRM ---------> Assert L [ As per the Draft]
This seems to me a misleading behaviour, there should be an additional check, like
AssertTrackingDesired() while processing of State Refresh Message and thus the router RT1 should keep the Assert FSM in [NI] state.

Kindly comment on the same.

Regards,
Prashant Jhingran

Huawei Technologies
Beijing, China
Ph# 00-86-10-82882016  (O) 
        00-86-10-62974038  (R)
www.huawei.com

"You see, all the problems in the world are created by those who want 'perfection.' "
-- Sri Sri Ravi Shankar  www.artofliving.org 

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

************************************
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are proprietary and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of ITT Industries, Inc. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. ITT Industries accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.
************************************

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

---

From: Prashant Jhingran <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 15:55:40 +0800

Following is the detailed explanation of the same:

PIM Protocol Mode: DM.

Consider three router topology:
Source---->Router 1--------->------------------------Router
2------->--------------------------------Router 3

There are no receivers.

Now, Router 1[Acting as a Source Designated Router i.e. SDR] originates
an SRM [State Refresh Message] towards Router 2.
Then as per the section "4.6.4.  (S,G) Assert Message State Machine" of
PIM-DM  RFC3973,
the Assert FSM of Router 2 for this SG entry should transition to Looser
state.

Since the OIF List or Router 2 is empty, the  transition in Assert FSM
state on Router 2 seems to be unnecessary.

There should be an additional check, like AssertTrackingDesired() ==
True while processing of State Refresh Message and thus the Router 2
should keep the Assert FSM in [NI] state.

regards,
Prashant

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas, Jonathan - ACD [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 9:37 PM
To: Prashant Jhingran; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [pim] PIM-DM:(S,G) Assert Message State Machine

I'm afraid I don't understand your scenario.  What are SDR and SRM?  How
is everything connected together?  What is wrong with RT1 being an
Assert Loser?

Jonathan Nicholas
Network Systems Engineer

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Prashant Jhingran
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 3:57 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [pim] PIM-DM:(S,G) Assert Message State Machine

Hi All,

Consider the following scenerio [No Receivers].
SDR---------------------RT1-------------------RT2

-> SRM ---------> Assert L [ As per the Draft]
This seems to me a misleading behaviour, there should be an additional
check, like
AssertTrackingDesired() while processing of State Refresh Message and
thus the router RT1 should keep the Assert FSM in [NI] state.

Regards,
Prashant Jhingran

Huawei Technologies

Beijing, China

        00-86-10-62974038  (R)
www.huawei.com

"You see, all the problems in the world are created by those who want
'perfection.' "
-- Sri Sri Ravi Shankar  www.artofliving.org 

************************************
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are proprietary and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the
sender. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail
are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of
ITT Industries, Inc. The recipient should check this e-mail and any
attachments for the presence of viruses. ITT Industries accepts no
liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.
************************************