Subject: RE: [pim] ID update for "Anycast-RP using PIM"

From: "Amit Shukla" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 22:32:30 -0700

Amit>>There is some discussion in the past regarding the possibilty of 
Amit>>having loops as a result of mis-configuration. Can`t we reserve a
bit 
Amit>>in Register message, which indicates if the register packet is
coming 

Dino> That is the reason for the Register TTL copying logic. It's less
evasive.

Amit>> Doesn`t register TTL copying logic rely upon TTL to become 0 to
detect
Amit>> loops ?

Dino>Yes. But we are not detecting loops per say, we are stopping them
for
Dino>a ttl-value of times.

Amit>> It may be evasive but having a bit in Register message itself
will not
Amit>> even let the loop start at first place in any mis-configuration.
It`s for
Amit>> different reason but today Register message have a bit indicating
if 
Amit>> they are coming from DR or PMBR.

Dino>    You also want this to work with older RPs as well, and you
can't dictate
Dino>    new behavior in them.

I`m missing something here. Don`t understand what kind of problem gets
created
for older RP`s. Won`t they just ignore this new bit as it was reserved
earlier ?

Amit>> the loop start at first place in any mis-configuration. It`s for
Amit>> different 
Amit>> reason but today Register message have a bit indicating if they
are
Amit>> coming from 
Amit>> DR or PMBR. 

Dino>    Understand. What do other people think? 

Any closure on this one ?

Thanks
Amit

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

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 09:07:54 -0700

>> Any closure on this one ?

    See the spec.

Dino