> Dino, > > > More questions inserted below: > > From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2014 11:50 AM > > > > Well if the virtual switch supports LISP, then the app directly tells the xTR > which groups it is joining. > > [Linda] Many virtual switches today don’t even supports IGMP snooping. > Asking them to support LISP maybe even harder.
Linda, we are taling about adding multicast capability in an overlay. If you add this functionality in a virtual switch, adding IGMP capability is a small price. > And if the LISP xTR is one-hop northbound from the virtual switch, you can > bet the virtual switch does IGMP snooping. > > > > > > Or “Multicast server” can fake “IGMP query” to all the NVEs, which forwarded > down to applications. The reply (IGMP report) can be automatically sent back > to “multicast server” without NVE doing anything extra. > > What do you think? > > You want multicast routers to attach to the overlay. They don't send IGMP > packets to each other. > > [Linda] the IGMP messages are sent to “Applications” directly, who will send > back “IGMP report” back to the node that sends the IGMP query. The kernel of the OS the application runs on. > > IGMP is a host-to-router protocol and has been abused to be a host-to-switch > protocol. Let's stop the abuse. :-) > > [Linda] The IGMP messages are still “host to router” (host to multicast > router). The NVEs don’t need to do anything extra for those IGMP messages. > Why you call it “abuse”? > > Linda Nevermind. Dino _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
