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
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.