Re: mboned: RE: [magma] suggestion for simplifying IGMPV3/MLDV2 to discard EXCLUDEmode

Mark:

Your notation was clear.
I thought the desired outcome of this discussion was to
eliminate the need for EXCLUDE filter state on the router.
Am I mistaken here?


WRT the clarity of the IGMPv3 spec: not to me. ;-)
(Just a data point, not meant to be taken as an indictment
of the spec nor a confession of my ignorance, but I do thank
you for your patient elaboration of the goals and methods.)

Thanks
z

On Jun 29, 2006, at 2:09 AM, mark fine wrote:

>>
>> But, I thought the plan was to do away with EXCLUDE state
>> for specific sources and with an empty list of sources to
>> be BLOCKED, this state is equivalent to INCLUDE(A+).
>
> apologies if my notation was not clear, but the above is equivalent to
>
> Router State       Report Rec'd  New Router State     Actions
> ------------       ------------  ----------------     -------
> EXCLUDE (X, NULL)  IS_IN (A)     EXCLUDE (X+A, NULL)  (A)=GMI
>
> using (A, B) notation described in 6.4.1 of 3376.  in other words,
> before receiving IS_IN(A), the group record has a timer and a list  
> of X
> source records each having a timer; after receiving IS_IN(A), the  
> group
> record has an un-refreshed timer and a list of X+A source records each
> having a timer, with the list of A source records having refreshed
> timers, and the list of X-A source records having unrefreshed timers.
_______________________________________________________________
user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned.html
web archive:  http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/mboned/