Re: [pim] BSR update

["Christopher Thomas Brown" <ctbrown at nexthop.com>]

Venu Hemige wrote:
> 
> Wouldn't there be a problem if we do not do RPF check? Let's say there
> is more than one router starting up simultaneously. Both of them do not
> do RPF check for a short period of time. BSMs that are received on that
> interface and accepted without RPF check may be forwarded back on that
> interface (or may come from elsewhere to complete the loop). The same
> BSM may get forwarded multiple times in the network until the routers
> decide to start doing RPF check again.

I don't think this is a problem if a router only accepts one BSM like
this.  Once the first BSM has been accepted all others should have to
pass the RPF check.

However, I'm not sure I like restarting routers forwarding these BSMs
at all. Accepting but not forwarding.

> I like Dino's second idea of setting a bit in the BSM to accept without
> RPF check. But I think the BSM should be forwarded. When forwarding, we
> should disable this bit.

Where would the bit come from? The only field with spare bits is the
encoded-group address which seems a poor place to put the bit.

Chris

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