Re: Comments on draft-ietf-ipoib-link-multicast-04.txt
Roy Brabson <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ipoib |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <OF743935D6.91123AF2-ON85256D1F.0047EB06-85256D1F.00488583@us.ibm.com> |
> > For interoperatibilty. The requirement is the host and router must agree > > on using a common mechanism for exchanging the IP multicast packet. > > Implementations are free to choose a mechanism as long as all other > > implementations with which they communicate also choose to implement the > > same mechanism. I don't think this is an area where we can or should punt > > - a minimal, common approach needs to be mandated such that all IPoIB > > nodes implement that mechanism so that any two IPoIB nodes will > > interoperate. > > Roy, > > Yes, I agree that a common method must be described for interoperability. > Though, in this case, even with the flexibility > interoperability is maintained - the onus being on the router : > > The packet may be sent to the routers on broadcast-GID or the > all-router GID. The router itself will listen on both - > broadcast-GID since it is required by IPoIB and all-routers as a > result of other specs (IPv6 & IGMP). Therefore the packet will be > received by the router irrespective of the MGID used as long as > the router accepts any multicast packets on these MGIDs. I have > described the need for this in my previous reply. > > > We could do one of three things when the relevant MGID does not > exist: > > 1. The host must always forward on broadcast MGID > and the router must always accept IP multicast packets on the > broadcast GID. > > 2. The host must always forward on all-router MGID and the router > must always accept IP multicast packets on the all-router > MGID > > 3. The host must always forward on broadcast GID or all-router > MGID. The router must accept IP multicast packets on both the > broadcast MGID and all-router MGID. > > > We have chosen case 3 . Is there a strong feeling that one of the > other cases is preferable? > > It appears that the method chosen(case 3) needs to be > explicitly stated in the draft. My preference is for case 2, as sending to the all-router MGID reduces the amount of multicast traffic an IPoIB host must filter as oppposed to sending to the broadcast GID. I can live with case 3, but if it is chosen would prefer the text to state that the all-router MGID SHOULD be used, but the broadcast GID MAY be used. Roy