Re: [pim] Unicast BSMs and forwarding

[Cao Wei <caowayne at huawei.com>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stig Venaas" <stig.venaas at uninett.no>
To: "Cao Wei" <caowayne at huawei.com>
Cc: "Bharat Joshi" <bharat_joshi at infosys.com>; <pim at ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: [pim] Unicast BSMs and forwarding


> Hi
> Thanks, nice to know what you implemented.

> Right. I think unicast BSM is helpful to quickly give the restarting
> router the RP-set as well. I agree that forwarding should not create BSM
> storms, but I question whether it is useful to forward them.

I think that in some topologies, forwarding BSM may be helpful while may cause some minor  problem.

> If network was not partitioned, then I see no need for forwarding the
> unicast BSM, but also no danger since the router originating the unicast
> BSM has the same info as all the other routers that did not restart.
> 
> If the network was partitioned, then forwarding the unicast BSM might be
> helpful, but might also cause stale data to be propagated. This because
> the information the router originating the unicast BSM has, may be wrong.
> 
> The question is whether we want to prohibit forwarding of unicast BSMs,
> whether we want to require it, or just leave it open (I don't see any
> interoperability issues with vendors doing different things).

I would like to support leave it open because it will not affect the protocol interoperability. And another reason is that it is not worth much to require current implementions to change their behavior.
 
> Stig
> 
>>    
>>    Thanks.
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Bharat Joshi" <bharat_joshi at infosys.com>
>> To: "Stig Venaas" <stig.venaas at uninett.no>
>> Cc: <pim at ietf.org>
>> Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 10:46 AM
>> Subject: Re: [pim] Unicast BSMs and forwarding
>> 
>> 

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