Would you be present in IETF, we could discuss in person and then update the
From: BESS <bess-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Liuyisong <liuyis...@huawei.com>
Date: Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 4:38 AM
<draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-pr...@ietf.org>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>
Cc: Zhuangshunwan <zhuangshun...@huawei.com>, "Yangang (Routing Design)"
Subject: [bess] some questions about draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-02 for
I have some questions about the draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-02 for
In section 7.2 & 7.3, there are IGMP Join and Leave Synch Route definition as
IGMPv3 is very complicated, and it is not very clear to how to construct the
IGMP Join/Leave Synch Route in the draft.
Firstly I think only incremental membership information in the IGMP synch
route, because the route NLRI can only contain one (S,G) or (*,G)
1.for a simple example:
INCLUDE (A) BLOCK (B) INCLUDE (A) Send Q(G,A*B)
We can use include mode, source A*B, group G in IGMP Leave Synch Routes one by
one to notify the other multi-homed PEs.
2.for a more complicated example:
EXCLUDE (X,Y) TO_EX (A) EXCLUDE (A-Y,Y*A) (A-X-Y)=Group Timer
It is more difficult than example 1.There are 5 actions, and should we use both
Join and Leave Synch routes to notify the other multi-homed PEs?
I think we should use:
1） include mode, source A-X-Y, group G in IGMP Join Synch Routes one by one
2） include mode, source X-A, group G in IGMP Join Synch Routes withdraw one by
3） exclude mode, source Y-A, group G in IGMP Join Synch Routes withdraw one by
4） include mode, source A-Y, group G in IGMP Leave Synch Routes one by one
Is it appropriate for IGMPv3 Synch route construction in the draft?
3.In IGMPv3, only BLOCK, TO_IN, TO_EX can lead to generate last member query.
Is that mean when the PE only receive BLOCK, TO_IN , TO_EX , it should
advertise the leave synch routes to the other multi-homed PEs?
BESS mailing list