Subject: RE: [pim] doubt regard RP absence in the network

From: Rajamanickam jaganbabu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 09:13:40 +0000 (GMT)

Hi uma,

1. Even in normal SM case, multicast forwarding is possible even if we don't have RP information. 

2. When we are deleting (*,G) entry, it is not mandatory to remove all the (S,G) entry from the multicast forwarder unless and until all the outgoing interface list is null.

I have explained how it can happen using the following topology (fig. as an attachment).

Explanation:

1. If Rec_1 sends an (*,G) IGMP join to the PIM router "R1", then the PIM forwarding table at R1 look like 

(*,G) - oiflist=1

2. After some time, if Rec_2 send (src,G,1) IGMPV3 join, then the PIM forwarding table at R1 looks like

(S,G) - oiflist=1,2

(*,G) - oiflist=1

In the above forwarding table while adding (S,G) entry, the inherited outgoing list will be 1 and the immediate outgoing list will be 2, so consolidating the outgoing interface for (S,G) will 1 and 2

3, In case, if RP goes off, then R1 has to remove the (*,G) entry from the forwarding table and remove the inherited outgoing list, so after the (*,G) removal, the multicast forwarder looks like this.

(S,G) - oiflist=2

So even in SM. it is not necessary to remove all the (S,G) entries if you remove (*,G) entry from the multicast forwarding table.

Regards,

Jags

Uma C <[email-masked]> wrote: 

Hello Jags 

I guess in the case of IGMPv3, we do not create any (*,G) entry as the Group range for SSM is different. And as you said we can still forward the packets whether there is RP information or not. 

But in the case of SM only, where (*,G) and (S,G) entry exists and (S,G) entry holds the oif of the (*,G), if the RP information is not present - 

* (*,G) will be deleted and oif learnt from (*,G) will be deleted from (S,G) also, irrespective of whether local receivers present or not. 

* When the RP information is learnt again, (*,G) entry would be re-created if the receivers are still present. 

Do you still think if RP information is not present (in the case of SM only), multicast packets would flow ? 

Thanks & Regards 

C.Uma 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rajamanickam jaganbabu [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 11:16 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [pim] doubt regard RP absence in the network

Hi Uma, 

If there is an IGMPV3 request from the receiver, asking for (S,G,I) join to a particular source, then we will be having an (S,G) entry, which will be the super set of (*,G) outgoing list. If we lost (*,G) information, then it will affect (S,G) inherited outgoing list but there is a possible case where we can have immediate outgoing list exist for (S,G) (which is not in inherited outgoing list), so at this point even we delete (*,G) entry from our multicast forwarding table still (S,G) entry will be existing in the multicast forwarding table.

So my conclusion is, in the above case even if we lost our RP information, still we can forward the multicast packet using (S,G) information for a source "S". 

Thanx, 

Jags

Uma C <[email-masked]> wrote: 

Hello Jags 

When there is no RP information - 

1. (*,G) entry would surely get deleted. Outgoing interface in that (*,G) and (S,G) also gets deleted. So how are the packets still flowing ? 

2. If the (*,G) entry alone gets deleted because of the RP information not present and when the receiver leave the group, will the (S,G) entry get deleted ?. If yes how ? On what basis will this (S,G) entry get deleted. 

I guess the entries at SPT built routers would get deleted only when source of the multicast packet stops sending packets. 

I feel that, when the (*,G) entry gets deleted, (S,G) entry also would be deleted and there want be a case in which multicast packets will be flowing. Well I haven't thought about SSM case. 

Pl correct me if I am in wrong in my understanding. 

Thanks & Regards 

C.Uma 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Rajamanickam jaganbabu
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 8:38 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [pim] doubt regard RP absence in the network

Hi rajesh, 

If the receiver and the source has the Source Path Tree established (i.e if we have (S,G) entry in the Multicast forwarding table), then irrespective of the RP information availability, the multicast packet will be forwarded. 

I hope the above information will help you, if i have understood your question correctly. 

Regards, 

Jags 

"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]> wrote: 

Hi,
I have the following doubt,

If there is no RP in the network or all the RPs expire in the network. Can there be packet forwarding activity in a PIM-SM (only) domain. In clear my doubt is can the receivers switched over to the packet forwarding via SPT still continue to receive the data packets even if there is not RP information with him.
thanks in advance
rajesh,

Join Excite! - <http://www.excite.com/>
The most personalized portal on the Web! 

Catch all the cricket action. Download Yahoo! Score tracker <http://in.sports.yahoo.com/cricket/tracker.html>

Catch all the cricket action. Download Yahoo! Score tracker <http://in.sports.yahoo.com/cricket/tracker.html>

Catch all the cricket action. Download Yahoo! Score tracker

  +------+
  |      |
  |  RP  |
  |      |
  +------+
    1 |
      |
      |
      |
      +----------+
                 |
                 |
                 |
                 | 4
             +-------+
           1 |       | 3
        +----|  R1   |----------------------+
        |    |       |                      |
        |    +-------+                      |
        |        | 2                        |1
        | 1      |                       +------+
     +------+    |                       |      |
     |      |    +-----+                 | src  |
     |Rec_1 |          |                 |      |
     |      |          |                 +------+
     +------+          |
                       | 1
                    +------+
                    |      |
                    |Rec_2 |
                    |      |
                    +------+

---

From: "Uma C" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 17:50:53 +0530

Hello Jags

Pl find my response inlined with the tag <UMA>.

Regards
C.Uma

  -----Original Message-----
  From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
Behalf Of Rajamanickam jaganbabu
  Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 2:44 PM
  To: [email-masked]
  Cc: [email-masked]
  Subject: RE: [pim] doubt regard RP absence in the network

  Hi uma,

  1. Even in normal SM case, multicast forwarding is possible even if we
don't have RP information.
  [Uma C] I guess not. In the example you had given includes SSM also.

  =========

  2. When we are deleting (*,G) entry, it is not mandatory to remove all the
(S,G) entry from the multicast forwarder unless and until all the outgoing
interface list is null.
  [Uma C] I agree with you. And in the SM case there cannot be a situation
when (*,G) is deleted but (S,G) still remains.

  ==================

  I have explained how it can happen using the following topology (fig. as
an attachment).

  Explanation:

  1. If Rec_1 sends an (*,G) IGMP join to the PIM router "R1", then the PIM
forwarding table at R1 look like

  (*,G) - oiflist=1

  2. After some time, if Rec_2 send (src,G,1) IGMPV3 join, then the PIM
forwarding table at R1 looks like

  (S,G) - oiflist=1,2

  (*,G) - oiflist=1

  In the above forwarding table while adding (S,G) entry, the inherited
outgoing list will be 1 and the immediate outgoing list will be 2, so
consolidating the outgoing interface for (S,G) will 1 and 2

  3, In case, if RP goes off, then R1 has to remove the (*,G) entry from the
forwarding table and remove the inherited outgoing list, so after the (*,G)
removal, the multicast forwarder looks like this.

  (S,G) - oiflist=2
  [Uma C]  Yes, multicast packets should flow on interface 2. I agree with
this. But the discussion started with whether multicast packets can be
forwarded in PIM-SM domain only (This is want Rajesh asked for) when RP
information is not present. In this case do not execute the step 2, so the
(*,G) and (S,G) will hold the same oif, and hence both of these entries get
deleted. So the multicast packets stop flowing.

  ================

  So even in SM. it is not necessary to remove all the (S,G) entries if you
remove (*,G) entry from the multicast forwarding table.
  [Uma C] I guess not in the SM domain (which doesnot include SSM). I
apreciate the interest you had taken to explain the situation with a
topology. Thanks Jags.

  =================

  Regards,

  Jags

  Hello Jags

  I guess in the case of IGMPv3, we do not create any (*,G) entry as the
Group range for SSM is different. And as you said we can still forward the
packets whether there is RP information or not.

  But in the case of SM only, where (*,G) and (S,G) entry exists and (S,G)
entry holds the oif of the (*,G), if the RP information is not present -

  * (*,G) will be deleted and oif learnt from (*,G) will be deleted from
(S,G) also, irrespective of whether local receivers present or not.

  * When the RP information is learnt again, (*,G) entry would be re-created
if the receivers are still present.

  Do you still think if RP information is not present (in the case of SM
only), multicast packets would flow ?

  Thanks & Regards

  C.Uma

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Rajamanickam jaganbabu [mailto:[email-masked]]
  Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 11:16 AM
  To: [email-masked]
  Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
  Subject: RE: [pim] doubt regard RP absence in the network

  Hi Uma,

  If there is an IGMPV3 request from the receiver, asking for (S,G,I) join
to a particular source, then we will be having an (S,G) entry, which will be
the super set of (*,G) outgoing list. If we lost (*,G) information, then it
will affect (S,G) inherited outgoing list but there is a possible case where
we can have immediate outgoing list exist for (S,G) (which is not in
inherited outgoing list), so at this point even we delete (*,G) entry from
our multicast forwarding table still (S,G) entry will be existing in the
multicast forwarding table.

  So my conclusion is, in the above case even if we lost our RP information,
still we can forward the multicast packet using (S,G) information for a
source "S".

  Thanx,

  Jags

  Hello Jags

  1. (*,G) entry would surely get deleted. Outgoing interface in that (*,G)
and (S,G) also gets deleted. So how are the packets still flowing ?

  2. If the (*,G) entry alone gets deleted because of the RP information not
present and when the receiver leave the group, will the (S,G) entry get
deleted ?. If yes how ? On what basis will this (S,G) entry get deleted.

  I guess the entries at SPT built routers would get deleted only when
source of the multicast packet stops sending packets.

  I feel that, when the (*,G) entry gets deleted, (S,G) entry also would be
deleted and there want be a case in which multicast packets will be flowing.
Well I haven't thought about SSM case.

  Thanks & Regards

  C.Uma

  -----Original Message-----
  From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
Behalf Of Rajamanickam jaganbabu
  Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 8:38 PM
  To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
  Subject: Re: [pim] doubt regard RP absence in the network

  Hi rajesh,

  If the receiver and the source has the Source Path Tree established (i.e
if we have (S,G) entry in the Multicast forwarding table), then irrespective
of the RP information availability, the multicast packet will be forwarded.

  I hope the above information will help you, if i have understood your
question correctly.

  Regards,

  Jags

  Hi,

  If there is no RP in the network or all the RPs expire in the network. Can
there be packet forwarding activity in a PIM-SM (only) domain. In clear my
doubt is can the receivers switched over to the packet forwarding via SPT
still continue to receive the data packets even if there is not RP
information with him.
  thanks in advance
  rajesh,

  Catch all the cricket action. Download Yahoo! Score tracker
<http://in.sports.yahoo.com/cricket/tracker.html>

  Catch all the cricket action. Download Yahoo! Score tracker
<http://in.sports.yahoo.com/cricket/tracker.html>

***************************************************************************
This message is proprietary to Future Software Limited (FSL) 
and is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it
is addressed. It may contain  privileged or confidential information 
and should not be circulated or used for any purpose other than for 
what it is intended. 

If you have received this message in error, please notify the
originator immediately. If you are not the intended recipient,
you are notified that you are strictly prohibited from using,
copying, altering, or disclosing the contents of this message. 
FSL accepts no responsibility for loss or damage arising from 
the use of the information transmitted by this email including
damage from virus.
***************************************************************************

---

From: Rajamanickam jaganbabu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 15:10:22 +0000 (GMT)

Hi uma, 

Whatever I have mentioned below was only with respect to SM domain (I haven't mentioned SSM case, which is altogether a different story). I don't understand why you need to delete even (S,G) if you don't have (*,G), draft doesn't say that. But according to the draft, we need to remove only inherited outlist from (S,G) entry, but in our case we have immediate outgoing list in (S,G) which is not a part of inherited list (if the (S,G) immediate outlist and inherited outlist are same then only we should remove (S,G) entry from your multicast forwarding table), so there is no point and we should not delete (S,G) entry from the multicast routing table even if (*,G) entry is deleted. 

I hope u understand the logic. 

Regards, 

Jags

 Uma C <[email-masked]> wrote:Hello Jags Pl find my response inlined with the tag <UMA>. RegardsC.Uma -----Original Message-----

Hi uma,

=========

2. When we are deleting (*,G) entry, it is not mandatory to remove all the (S,G) entry from the multicast forwarder unless and until all the outgoing interface list is null.
[Uma C] I agree with you. And in the SM case there cannot be a situation when (*,G) is deleted but (S,G) still remains.

==================

Explanation:

(*,G) - oiflist=1

(S,G) - oiflist=1,2

(*,G) - oiflist=1

(S,G) - oiflist=2
[Uma C]  Yes, multicast packets should flow on interface 2. I agree with this. But the discussion started with whether multicast packets can be forwarded in PIM-SM domain only (This is want Rajesh asked for) when RP information is not present. In this case do not execute the step 2, so the (*,G) and (S,G) will hold the same oif, and hence both of these entries get deleted. So the multicast packets stop flowing.

================

So even in SM. it is not necessary to remove all the (S,G) entries if you remove (*,G) entry from the multicast forwarding table.
[Uma C] I guess not in the SM domain (which doesnot include SSM). I apreciate the interest you had taken to explain the situation with a topology. Thanks Jags.

=================

Regards,

Jags

Hello Jags 

Thanks & Regards 

C.Uma 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rajamanickam jaganbabu [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 11:16 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [pim] doubt regard RP absence in the network

Hi Uma, 

Thanx, 

Jags

Hello Jags 

Thanks & Regards 

C.Uma 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Rajamanickam jaganbabu
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 8:38 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [pim] doubt regard RP absence in the network

Hi rajesh, 

Regards, 

Jags 

Hi,

---

From: john nowa <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 15:39:19 +0000 (GMT)

hello umaaa,
       I guess, whatever jags referring is correct. According to his topology, we can still forward the multicast packet for (S,G).
John
 Rajamanickam jaganbabu <[email-masked]> wrote:
Hi uma, 

Regards, 

Jags

 Uma C <[email-masked]> wrote: Hello Jags Pl find my response inlined with the tag <UMA>. RegardsC.Uma -----Original Message-----

Hi uma,

=========

==================

Explanation:

(*,G) - oiflist=1

(S,G) - oiflist=1,2

(*,G) - oiflist=1

(S,G) - oiflist=2

================

=================

Regards,

Jags

Hello Jags 

Thanks & Regards 

C.Uma 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rajamanickam jaganbabu [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 11:16 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [pim] doubt regard RP absence in the network

Hi Uma, 

Thanx, 

Jags

Hello Jags 

Thanks & Regards 

C.Uma 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Rajamanickam jaganbabu
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 8:38 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [pim] doubt regard RP absence in the network

Hi rajesh, 

Regards, 

Jags 

Hi,

---

From: "Uma C" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 11:20:07 +0530

Hello John & Jags

I also agreed upon what Jags has mentioned in his topology.
>>> 3, In case, if RP goes off, then R1 has to remove the (*,G) entry from
the forwarding table and remove the inherited outgoing list, so after the
(*,G) removal, the multicast forwarder looks like this.

>>> [Uma C]  Yes, multicast packets should flow on interface 2. I agree with
this.

Pl confirm only this -
* Received IGMPv2 Join, created a (*,G) entry.
* Switched to SPT, hence (S,G) entry is created. (*, G) and (S, G) entry
holds the same oif.
* Packets are flowing through SPT.
* Now when the RP information is not present. (*,G) entry is deleted.

Will the (S,G) entry exists ? Would the data packets flow ?.

Note:- In all this discussion I was only referring to receivers joining
through IGMPv2 Join. In the case of IGMPv3 Join ie., source specific Join I
agree that packets will be flowing irrespective of RP informations present
or not.

Hope this time I have expressed my thoughts clearly.

Thanks & Regards
C.Uma

  -----Original Message-----
  From: john nowa [mailto:[email-masked]]
  Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 9:09 PM
  To: Rajamanickam jaganbabu; [email-masked]
  Cc: [email-masked]
  Subject: RE: [pim] doubt regard RP absence in the network

  hello umaaa,

         I guess, whatever jags referring is correct. According to his
topology, we can still forward the multicast packet for (S,G).

  John

    Hi uma,

    Whatever I have mentioned below was only with respect to SM domain (I
haven't mentioned SSM case, which is altogether a different story). I don't
understand why you need to delete even (S,G) if you don't have (*,G), draft
doesn't say that. But according to the draft, we need to remove only
inherited outlist from (S,G) entry, but in our case we have immediate
outgoing list in (S,G) which is not a part of inherited list (if the (S,G)
immediate outlist and inherited outlist are same then only we should remove
(S,G) entry from your multicast forwarding table), so there is no point and
we should not delete (S,G) entry from the multicast routing table even if
(*,G) entry is deleted.

    Regards,

    Jags

      Hello Jags

      Regards
      C.Uma

        -----Original Message-----
        From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Rajamanickam jaganbabu
        Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 2:44 PM
        To: [email-masked]
        Cc: [email-masked]
        Subject: RE: [pim] doubt regard RP absence in the network

        Hi uma,

        1. Even in normal SM case, multicast forwarding is possible even if
we don't have RP information.
        [Uma C] I guess not. In the example you had given includes SSM also.

        =========

        2. When we are deleting (*,G) entry, it is not mandatory to remove
all the (S,G) entry from the multicast forwarder unless and until all the
outgoing interface list is null.
        [Uma C] I agree with you. And in the SM case there cannot be a
situation when (*,G) is deleted but (S,G) still remains.

        ==================

        I have explained how it can happen using the following topology
(fig. as an attachment).

        Explanation:

        1. If Rec_1 sends an (*,G) IGMP join to the PIM router "R1", then
the PIM forwarding table at R1 look like

        (*,G) - oiflist=1

        2. After some time, if Rec_2 send (src,G,1) IGMPV3 join, then the
PIM forwarding table at R1 looks like

        (S,G) - oiflist=1,2

        (*,G) - oiflist=1

        In the above forwarding table while adding (S,G) entry, the
inherited outgoing list will be 1 and the immediate outgoing list will be 2,
so consolidating the outgoing interface for (S,G) will 1 and 2

        3, In case, if RP goes off, then R1 has to remove the (*,G) entry
from the forwarding table and remove the inherited outgoing list, so after
the (*,G) removal, the multicast forwarder looks like this.

        (S,G) - oiflist=2
        [Uma C]  Yes, multicast packets should flow on interface 2. I agree
with this. But the discussion started with whether multicast packets can be
forwarded in PIM-SM domain only (This is want Rajesh asked for) when RP
information is not present. In this case do not execute the step 2, so the
(*,G) and (S,G) will hold the same oif, and hence both of these entries get
deleted. So the multicast packets stop flowing.

        ================

        So even in SM. it is not necessary to remove all the (S,G) entries
if you remove (*,G) entry from the multicast forwarding table.
        [Uma C] I guess not in the SM domain (which doesnot include SSM). I
apreciate the interest you had taken to explain the situation with a
topology. Thanks Jags.

        =================

        Regards,

        Jags

        Hello Jags

        I guess in the case of IGMPv3, we do not create any (*,G) entry as
the Group range for SSM is different. And as you said we can still forward
the packets whether there is RP information or not.

        But in the case of SM only, where (*,G) and (S,G) entry exists and
(S,G) entry holds the oif of the (*,G), if the RP information is not
present -

        * (*,G) will be deleted and oif learnt from (*,G) will be deleted
from (S,G) also, irrespective of whether local receivers present or not.

        * When the RP information is learnt again, (*,G) entry would be
re-created if the receivers are still present.

        Do you still think if RP information is not present (in the case of
SM only), multicast packets would flow ?

        Thanks & Regards

        C.Uma

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Rajamanickam jaganbabu [mailto:[email-masked]]
        Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 11:16 AM
        To: [email-masked]
        Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
        Subject: RE: [pim] doubt regard RP absence in the network

        Hi Uma,

        If there is an IGMPV3 request from the receiver, asking for (S,G,I)
join to a particular source, then we will be having an (S,G) entry, which
will be the super set of (*,G) outgoing list. If we lost (*,G) information,
then it will affect (S,G) inherited outgoing list but there is a possible
case where we can have immediate outgoing list exist for (S,G) (which is not
in inherited outgoing list), so at this point even we delete (*,G) entry
from our multicast forwarding table still (S,G) entry will be existing in
the multicast forwarding table.

        So my conclusion is, in the above case even if we lost our RP
information, still we can forward the multicast packet using (S,G)
information for a source "S".

        Thanx,

        Jags

        Hello Jags

        1. (*,G) entry would surely get deleted. Outgoing interface in that
(*,G) and (S,G) also gets deleted. So how are the packets still flowing ?

        2. If the (*,G) entry alone gets deleted because of the RP
information not present and when the receiver leave the group, will the
(S,G) entry get deleted ?. If yes how ? On what basis will this (S,G) entry
get deleted.

        I feel that, when the (*,G) entry gets deleted, (S,G) entry also
would be deleted and there want be a case in which multicast packets will be
flowing. Well I haven't thought about SSM case.

        Thanks & Regards

        C.Uma

        -----Original Message-----
        From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Rajamanickam jaganbabu
        Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 8:38 PM
        To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
        Subject: Re: [pim] doubt regard RP absence in the network

        Hi rajesh,

        If the receiver and the source has the Source Path Tree established
(i.e if we have (S,G) entry in the Multicast forwarding table), then
irrespective of the RP information availability, the multicast packet will
be forwarded.

        I hope the above information will help you, if i have understood
your question correctly.

        Regards,

        Jags

        Hi,

        If there is no RP in the network or all the RPs expire in the
network. Can there be packet forwarding activity in a PIM-SM (only) domain.
In clear my doubt is can the receivers switched over to the packet
forwarding via SPT still continue to receive the data packets even if there
is not RP information with him.
        thanks in advance
        rajesh,

---

From: Rajamanickam jaganbabu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 08:50:47 +0000 (GMT)

Hi Uma,
   I think, you need to read my topology properly, where i have mensioned about IGMPV3 and not IGMPV2. If you spend some time to read the topology properly, you might not be having such a doubts (IGMPV3/V2).
Regards,
Jags
 Uma C <[email-masked]> wrote:Hello John & Jags I also agreed upon what Jags has mentioned in his topology. 

>>> (S,G) - oiflist=2
>>> [Uma C]  Yes, multicast packets should flow on interface 2. I agree with this. 
 Pl confirm only this -* Received IGMPv2 Join, created a (*,G) entry. * Switched to SPT, hence (S,G) entry is created. (*, G) and (S, G) entry holds the same oif. * Packets are flowing through SPT.* Now when the RP information is not present. (*,G) entry is deleted. Will the (S,G) entry exists ? Would the data packets flow ?.  Note:- In all this discussion I was only referring to receivers joining through IGMPv2 Join. In the case of IGMPv3 Join ie., source specific Join I agree that packets will be flowing irrespective of RP informations present or not. Hope this time I have expressed my thoughts clearly. Thanks & RegardsC.Uma -----Original Message-----

hello umaaa, 

Regards, 

Jags

Hi uma,

=========

==================

Explanation:

(*,G) - oiflist=1

(S,G) - oiflist=1,2

(*,G) - oiflist=1

(S,G) - oiflist=2

================

=================

Regards,

Jags

Hello Jags 

Thanks & Regards 

C.Uma 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rajamanickam jaganbabu [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 11:16 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [pim] doubt regard RP absence in the network

Hi Uma, 

Thanx, 

Jags

Hello Jags 

Thanks & Regards 

C.Uma 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Rajamanickam jaganbabu
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 8:38 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [pim] doubt regard RP absence in the network

Hi rajesh, 

Regards, 

Jags 

Hi,