gmane.ietf.magma

Closing of the MAGMA mailing list

Brian Haberman — 2012-03-29T12:53:51

All,
      The IESG has recently re-chartered the PIM working group.  In 
doing so, they have added responsibility for handling work related to 
IGMP and MLD.  To avoid any confusion, I have suggested that the magma 
mailing list be closed and all discussion of IGMP/MLD issues carried out 
on the PIM mailing list.  My plan is to close this mailing list in the 
next week or so.

      Information on subscribing to the PIM mailing list is available at 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim.

Regards,
Brian

Regarding IGMPProxy stream receiving time gap after join

Ganesh Reddy K — 2012-03-14T07:12:54

Regarding IGMPProxy :---

                                           Upstream
            Downstream
H1 -------------------------------------  eth0 IGMPProxy eth2
-------------------------------------- H2
multicastsend
                                                    multicastrecv

UDP -->
                                                      <---- JOIN


With the above setup.

Started pumping UDP stream  from H1 to group 239.0.0.0/5000.

After sending the IGMP JOIN on H2 side (to Grp 239.0.0.0), UDP stream
started receiving properly to the port 5000.

But it is observed that, udp stream is not recieved immediately to H2,
it is taking 2 to 3 seconds some times, it is taking 4 to 6 seconds
also.

I hope that IGMPProxy implementation will add the Route in MFC,
whenver it receives CACHE_MISS event and matches the JOIN database.

In IGMP General queries sent, "Max Response Time" field is set to 1 second.


Any better approach to avoid  delayed stream

Thanks in advance
Ganesh

Re: Fw: [multimob] draft-ietf-multimob-igmp-mld-tuning-03

Hitoshi Asaeda — 2012-02-16T11:49:35

I mean any positive and negative comments welcome.
--
Hitoshi Asaeda

Fw: [multimob] draft-ietf-multimob-igmp-mld-tuning-03

Hitoshi Asaeda — 2012-02-16T11:34:33

Hello folks,

Multimob WG started WGLC for the following draft discussing IGMP/MLD
timer or value tuning for wireless network or mobile communication.

We'd appreciate hearing your comments on "multimob ML", not magma ML.
(Just teling "support" on multimob ML is also fine. :)

Regards,
--
Hitoshi Asaeda

_______________________________________________
magma mailing list
magma< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/magma

Re: Learning dynamic mrouter when both IGMP and snoopingare enabled

Indranil Bhattacharya — 2012-02-10T08:33:06

Hi Sudhanshu,

                     Yes you should learn mrouter port via Query and PIM
Hello even when IGMP(PIM) and snooping are both enabled. The learnt mrouter
ports should only be used for forwarding control packets and not data
packets. If only IGMP Snooping is enabled then we should forward data on
mrouter ports.

Thanks,
Indranil

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:13 AM, sudhanshu kumar <sudhanshu22< at >gmail.com>wrote:

_______________________________________________
magma mailing list
magma< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/magma

Learning dynamic mrouter when both IGMP and snooping areenabled

sudhanshu kumar — 2012-02-10T04:43:41

Hi,
If we have enabled both IGMP and IGMP snooping, and we receive query from a
neighbor, should we always create the dynamic mrouter(since snooping is
enabled).

Thanks,
Sudhanshu
_______________________________________________
magma mailing list
magma< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/magma

Re: Forwarding of query to mrouter ports of other vlans.

V, Magesh (Magesh — 2012-02-02T12:17:27

I believe for MVR application something similar would be required.

Thanks,
Magesh.

________________________________
From: magma-bounces< at >ietf.org [mailto:magma-bounces< at >ietf.org] On Behalf Of Indranil Bhattacharya
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 4:47 PM
To: magma< at >ietf.org
Subject: [magma] Forwarding of query to mrouter ports of other vlans.

Hi,

   I have one question regarding IGMP Snooping. Usually we forward query to mrouter ports of the receiving vlan. Can there be a scenario where I need to forward the query to mrouter ports of other vlans? If yes then what is the case?

Thanks,
Indranil
_______________________________________________
magma mailing list
magma< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/magma

Re: Querier transition based on Group Specific Query?

Bharat Joshi — 2012-02-01T13:45:43

Magesh,

        Now that we know it is not clear in RFC, I think it depends upon the individual interpretation of the text.

        My interpretation has come from the following snippet in RFC,

 - "query received from a router with a lower IP address" occurs when
   an IGMP Membership Query is received from a router on the same
   network with a lower IP address.

         It says 'IGMP Membership Query' here and in this RFC, this term is defined to mean either General or Group-Specific query.

         BTW, If you do a google search of this term, all top few results will say that it means 'General query'.

Regards,
Bharat
________________________________________
From: V, Magesh (Magesh) [magesh.v< at >alcatel-lucent.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 7:05 PM
To: Bharat Joshi; Indranil Bhattacharya
Cc: magma< at >ietf.org
Subject: RE: [magma] Querier transition based on Group Specific Query?

Hi Bharat,
A GSQ is an event triggered action (Leave Msg). 'N' number of groups can leave at different points in time f

Re: Querier transition based on Group Specific Query?

V, Magesh (Magesh — 2012-02-01T13:35:55

Hi Bharat,
A GSQ is an event triggered action (Leave Msg). 'N' number of groups can leave at different points in time for which, GSQs will be triggered. It would be un-necessary overhead in running the querier election logic for every such GSQ.

When it is clearly given what to do for a GSQ then the only other query msg type left is 'Gen Query'. Hence, I would interpret 'lower ip query msg' to be only 'Gen Query' for the election process.

Thanks,
Magesh.


-----Original Message-----
From: Bharat Joshi [mailto:bharat_joshi< at >infosys.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 6:48 PM
To: V, Magesh (Magesh); Indranil Bhattacharya
Cc: magma< at >ietf.org
Subject: RE: [magma] Querier transition based on Group Specific Query?

Magesh,

       The snippet you have copied in your mail is from the last para of section 3 of RFC 2236. In the same section, in second para of the same section, we have following text:


If a multicast router hears a  Query message from a router with a lower IP address, it MUST become a  Non-Querie

Re: Querier transition based on Group Specific Query?

V, Magesh (Magesh — 2012-02-01T13:05:04

Hi,
I believe querier election is driven by only Gen.Quer msgs. An igmp router can be in either 'Querier' or 'Non-Querier' state.
Since GSQs will be sent only by 'Querier' then we have to see what a 'Non-Querier' is recommended to do upon reception of GSQ.
The 'Non-Querier' should ONLY update its grp membership timer. The below snippet from last paragraph of section-3 explains this. 

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
When a non-Querier receives a Group-Specific Query message, if its
   existing group membership timer is greater than [Last Member Query
   Count] times the Max Response Time specified in the message, it sets
   its group membership timer to that value.

Also, the 'Non-Querier' state diagram reiterates the above interpretation.

Thanks,
Magesh.

-----Original Message-----
From: magma-bounces< at >ietf.org [mailto:magma-bounces< at >ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bharat Joshi
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 7:39 PM
To: Indranil Bhattacharya
Cc: magma< at >ietf.org
Subject: Re: [magma] Querier transition based on Group Specific Que

Re: Querier transition based on Group Specific Query?

Bharat Joshi — 2012-02-01T13:17:35

Magesh,

       The snippet you have copied in your mail is from the last para of section 3 of RFC 2236. In the same section, in second para of the same section, we have following text:


If a multicast router hears a  Query message from a router with a lower IP address, it MUST become a  Non-Querier on that network.

<<<<

       Please note that the above text uses 'Query message' and it does not clearly says which query message. In RFC 2236, querier election has used either 'Query' or 'Membership Query' interchangeably. I could not find an instance where it clearly says that it must be only general query messages.

       Also I just checked the state diagram also and in Non-querier case also, it just mention that if a 'query' is received from a lower IP address. It does not mention what type of query it is.

       So as far as I can see, this is not clear from the RFC.

Regards,
Bharat
________________________________________
From: V, Magesh (Magesh) [magesh.v< at >alcatel-lucent.com]
Sent: Wednesday, Februa

Sending query on a new member of VE

sudhanshu kumar — 2012-02-01T12:09:13

Hi,
If we have IGMP enabled on VE(virtual ethernet) with some member ports and
a new member port joins the VE, is it necessary to send query on that port
immediately, or we can send query on expiry of query interval timer.
What are the consequences of delaying the "send query message" on the newly
joining port.

Thanks,
Sudhanshu
_______________________________________________
magma mailing list
magma< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/magma

Forwarding of query to mrouter ports of other vlans.

Indranil Bhattacharya — 2012-02-01T11:16:39

Hi,

   I have one question regarding IGMP Snooping. Usually we forward query to
mrouter ports of the receiving vlan. Can there be a scenario where I need
to forward the query to mrouter ports of other vlans? If yes then what is
the case?

Thanks,
Indranil
_______________________________________________
magma mailing list
magma< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/magma

Re: Querier transition based on Group Specific Query?

Bharat Joshi — 2012-01-31T14:09:10

Indranil.

       Looks like what you are saying is correct.

       So it seems querier election logic should run when either group-specific queries or general queries are received.

Regards,
Bharat
________________________________________
From: Indranil Bhattacharya [myselfindranil< at >gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 7:24 PM
To: Bharat Joshi
Cc: magma< at >ietf.org
Subject: Re: [magma] Querier transition based on Group Specific Query?

Hi Bharat,

              RFC 2236, from Section 2.1

0x11 = Membership Query
        There are two sub-types of Membership Query messages:
        - General Query, used to learn which groups have members on an
          attached network.
        - Group-Specific Query, used to learn if a particular group
          has any members on an attached network.

         So Membership Query means both.

Thanks,
Indranil

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Bharat Joshi <bharat_joshi< at >infosys.com<mailto:bharat_joshi< at >infosys.com>> wrote:
Hi Indranil,

     Is this defined in an RFC lik

Re: Querier transition based on Group Specific Query?

Indranil Bhattacharya — 2012-01-31T13:54:09

Hi Bharat,

              RFC 2236, from Section 2.1

0x11 = Membership Query
        There are two sub-types of Membership Query messages:
        - General Query, used to learn which groups have members on an
          attached network.
        - Group-Specific Query, used to learn if a particular group
          has any members on an attached network.

         So Membership Query means both.

Thanks,
Indranil

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Bharat Joshi <bharat_joshi< at >infosys.com>wrote:

_______________________________________________
magma mailing list
magma< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/magma

Re: Querier transition based on Group Specific Query?

Bharat Joshi — 2012-01-31T13:30:37

Hi Indranil,

      Is this defined in an RFC like that? Can you point me to the reference where it says what you mean below?

      I just did a google search on this and few top results for this seems to refer to general query only.

Regards,
Bharat
________________________________________
From: Indranil Bhattacharya [myselfindranil< at >gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 6:58 PM
To: Bharat Joshi
Cc: magma< at >ietf.org
Subject: Re: [magma] Querier transition based on Group Specific Query?

Hi Bharat,

              "IGMP Membership Query"query does not mean only General Query. It means both GQ and GSQ. Anything on this?

Thanks,
Indranil

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Bharat Joshi <bharat_joshi< at >infosys.com<mailto:bharat_joshi< at >infosys.com>> wrote:
Hi Indranil,

        I think a router should always be looking at general queries.

        This is what is available in RFC 2236:


  The following three events can cause the router to change states:

  - "query timer expired" occurs when the timer set for que

Re: Querier transition based on Group Specific Query?

Indranil Bhattacharya — 2012-01-31T13:28:16

Hi Bharat,

              "IGMP Membership Query"query does not mean only General
Query. It means both GQ and GSQ. Anything on this?

Thanks,
Indranil

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Bharat Joshi <bharat_joshi< at >infosys.com>wrote:

_______________________________________________
magma mailing list
magma< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/magma

Re: Querier transition based on Group Specific Query?

Indranil Bhattacharya — 2012-01-31T13:23:31

Hi Bharat et all,

                      Thanks for your responses. Right, the second point
says it.

Thanks,
Indranil

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Bharat Joshi <bharat_joshi< at >infosys.com>wrote:

_______________________________________________
magma mailing list
magma< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/magma

Re: Querier transition based on Group Specific Query?

Bharat Joshi — 2012-01-31T11:03:22

Hi Indranil,

         I think a router should always be looking at general queries.

         This is what is available in RFC 2236:


   The following three events can cause the router to change states:

   - "query timer expired" occurs when the timer set for query
     transmission expires.

   - "query received from a router with a lower IP address" occurs when
     an IGMP Membership Query is received from a router on the same
     network with a lower IP address.

   - "other querier present timer expired" occurs when the timer set to
     note the presence of another querier with a lower IP address on the
     network expires.

<<<

     The second point clearly says that it should be an "IGMP Membership Query" which can trigger a change in querier state.

Regards,
Bharat
________________________________________
From: magma-bounces< at >ietf.org [magma-bounces< at >ietf.org] On Behalf Of Indranil Bhattacharya [myselfindranil< at >gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 8:56 AM
To: magma< at >ietf.org
Subject: [magma]

Re: Querier transition based on Group Specific Query?

Kudachi, Deepak S — 2012-01-31T05:14:44

Hi,

I guess it should be All host Query which needs to be considered for querier election and not group specific query
Some vendors may support their own proprietary  features like forced fast leave in this case non querier may send  single
GSQ on specific port to find any host interested for that group this should not be considered for querier election.

RFC does not mention any thing about this AHQ/GSQ/GSSQ.(let me know if you find anything related to this).

Rgds
Deepak

From: magma-bounces< at >ietf.org [mailto:magma-bounces< at >ietf.org] On Behalf Of Indranil Bhattacharya
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 8:57 AM
To: magma< at >ietf.org
Subject: [magma] Querier transition based on Group Specific Query?

Hi,

   In the querier transition state machine, RFC 2236 only mentions 'Query' and does not specify GQ or GSQ. Can a querier transition take place based on GSQ? Or is it okay to for a querier to ignore GSQ? Can anyone please help me with this?

Thanks,
Indranil

_______________________________________________
magma ma

Querier transition based on Group Specific Query?

Indranil Bhattacharya — 2012-01-31T03:26:50

_______________________________________________
magma mailing list
magma< at >ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/magma