Re: [pim] WG Last Call - draft-ietf-pim-bidir-06

[Stig Venaas <Stig.Venaas at uninett.no>]

On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 06:51:17AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
[...]
> On Fri, 21 May 2004, Isidor Kouvelas wrote:
[...]
> > First of all there is no incremental deployment for BIDIR-PIM.  Mixing
> > BIDIR capable and legacy routers in a domain is a mis-config which the
> > option helps detect. Obviously if on a BIDIR capable router you have
> > BIDIR PIM disabled then you will not see such a message because you
> > have a non capable neighbour.
> > Now it is true that the option itself dates back to Dino's draft that
> > did specify incremental deployment. The main reason we cannot remove it
> > now is to keep existing code happy.

It should, I hope, be possible to deploy bidir in a scoped zone, and
have pim-sm in surrounding routers outside the zone where the bidir
routers are used for groups belonging to the scope inside the zone.

At least I think so, and I think that's a realistic scenario.

> > There is currently no way of knowing what the group to RP / protocol
> > mapping is on a neighbouring PIM router. The assumption is that if the
> > neighbour is BIDIR capable then it has made the same interpretation of
> > the config / BSR advertisement.
> 
> I fail to see why this is relevant. The routers could stay "dormant", 
> advertising bidir-pim capabilities but not using bidir-pim for 
> anything until such time that config/BSR advertisement decrees that 
> bidir-pim is to be used for a group, right?  Or is there something I'm 
> missing?
> 
> When you get that BSR advertisement, only *then* you should start 
> complaining if your neighbors aren't bidir-PIM -capable.

And only if they are inside the zone I think. If you learn of say an
bidir RP for 239/8, don't complain about router outside 239/8 not
doing bidir.

I think such logging need to be optional though.

Stig

_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
pim at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim