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

On Jun 29, 2006, at 12:30 PM, John Zwiebel wrote:

> 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?


That was my understanding.

Regards
Marshall

>
>
> 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.