Subject: RE: A modest proposal: get rid of (*,*,RP) state

From: "Shekhar, Ravi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 19:46:32 -0400

> (*,*,RP) is not useful for attaching a dense mode stub to the existing
> infrastructure, since there are no global RP's.  It's really 

  As I understand it,  <*, *, RP> can be used anytime data originated in
  a sparse mode domain has to be pushed to a dense mode domain 
  (stub or otherwise). Yes its true that there is no one RP for all groups, 
  but in that case border router will have to generate <*, *, RP> joins to 
  each RP it knows in the SM domain.

> (*,*,RP) probably can't be represented in forwarding 
> hardware, since to
> match (*,*,RP) state you have to hash the G.

  Is <*, *, RP> representation or hashing required in hardware?
  If one is running AutoRP and has the support for doing best match on
  destination address (like many people have for the unicast routing), they 
  can push all the learnt group-RP mapping as class D address/mask with 
  iif towards RP and then do a best match on G contained in the data. From 
  here on problem is only as hard as supporting PIMSMs <*, G> in the
hardware.
  
  - Ravi Shekhar.

---

From: Isidor Kouvelas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 16:54:22 -0700

>  here on problem is only as hard as supporting PIMSMs <*, G> in the

This however is not the case for BSR. Each router hashes on a per group
bases between the set of possible RPs...

Isidor