Re: [pim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pim-group-rp-mapping-01.txt

["Andy Kessler (kessler)" <kessler at cisco.com>]

Comments below...

----Original Message-----
From: Stig Venaas [mailto:stig at venaas.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 1:14 AM
To: Andy Kessler (kessler)
Cc: John Zwiebel (jzwiebel); pim at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [pim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pim-group-rp-mapping-01.txt

Andy Kessler (kessler) wrote:
> Ok, we didn't intend to restrict or clarify how people should deploy 
> autorp, bsr,
> 
> static or embedded rp - but if you think that is relevant we can add
some
> 
> language in a new section like this:
> 
>  
> 
>   Use of dynamic group-to-rp mapping protocols
> 
>  
> 
>   Generally it is not necessary or recommended to run multiple dynamic

> group-to-rp
> 
>   mapping protocols in one administrative domain. Specifically, there
is 
> no interoperation of BSR
> 
>   and AutoRP implied or recommended by this draft. However, if a
router 
> was to receive two
>   sets of group-to-rp mappings from AutoRP and BSR, such as may be the

> case on a border
> 
>   router between two domains or perhaps through a misconfiguration
this 
> draft creates a
> 
>   deterministic way to resolve the conflict and select one group-to-rp

> mapping. This is
> 
>   necessary for consistency and stability of the network across the
PIM 
> domain.
> 

I think you could make a more general statement saying that the draft
does not imply implementation of any of the mapping mechanisms, but that
it provides a deterministic way to resolve...

Stig

Andy> John is not directly concerned about the implementation of the
mapping
Andy> mechanisms but rather that they are required to run together. We
are 
Andy> saying that it is not required or recommended.