Internet Info 1993/Internet Info CD-ROM (Walnut Creek) (1993).iso/inet/ietf/93mar/idmr-minutes-93mar.txt

Text File | 1993-05-14 | 3.9 KB | 104 lines

CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_


Reported by Tony Ballardie/UCL

Minutes of the Inter-Domain Multicast Routing BOF (IDMR)

The IDMR BOF session was held on Friday during the Columbus IETF
meeting.  The meeting was chaired by Tony Ballardie.  The Minutes were
taken by Benny Rodrig.  The CBT Protocol was discussed for the duration
of the session, in particular, the changes in the protocol since last
November's IDMR BOF session.

Multicast Scope Control

One possible solution to multicast scope control was presented, based on
having a separate group per level of scope required.  This resulted in a
considerable debate as to how multicast scoping should be defined and
the requirements of users it should be able to satisfy.  The solution
presented was deemed unsuitable, and it was agreed to continue the the
discussion on the idmr mailing list.  The conclusion was that the Group
should work towards a concise definition of multicast scope control.

Part of the group initiation procedure includes the group initiator
(host) updating DNS (via a system administrator) with the relevant group
information.  The concern was raised that the procedure is likely to be
too slow.  This part of group initiation may need to be revised to keep
group join latency to a minimum.

Multicast Data Packets

There was a brief discussion on the issue of multicast data packets
carrying the group-id as an IP option.  The conclusion however, was that
there was no more suitable alternative.

When a parent/parent link fails, it was decided that both the flush-tree
and re-join mechanisms should be implemented.  Which of the two
mechanisms eventually becomes redundant can only be decided after a
period of performance testing.

It was decided that non-primary cores should be less stringent in
accepting join-requests.  Also, an additional error detection mechanism
is required by routers to distinguish on-tree packets arriving via a
child as link-level unicast.

The draft includes no mention of child-parent ``keepalives'' and no
mention of a handshake protocol between a group initiator and potential
cores for that group.  The draft needs updating in these respects.

The control packet format should contain a group-id TYPE as an
additional protocol independence feature.

Finally, Paul Francis gave a brief description of how CBT will run over

                                   1





Pip.

Attendees

Anthony Ballardie        [e-mail]
Jim Beers                [e-mail]
Robert Braden            [e-mail]
Scott Brim               [e-mail]
David Carr               [e-mail]
Stephen Casner           [e-mail]
Steve Deering            [e-mail]
Steve DeJarnett          [e-mail]
Ed Ellesson              [e-mail]
Chip Elliott             [e-mail]
Dino Farinacci           [e-mail]
Paul Francis             [e-mail]
Chris Gunner             [e-mail]
Joel Halpern             [e-mail]
Ken Hayward              [e-mail]
Robert Hinden            [e-mail]
Frank Hoffmann           [e-mail]
Gerd Holzhauer           [e-mail]
Tony Li                  [e-mail]
Charles Lynn             [e-mail]
Kent Malave              [e-mail]
Jun Matsukata            [e-mail]
David Meyer              [e-mail]
Gerry Meyer              [e-mail]
Greg Minshall            [e-mail]
Matthew Morrisey         [e-mail]
William Owens            [e-mail]
Laura Pate               [e-mail]
Geir Pedersen            [e-mail]
Willi Porten             [e-mail]
Benny Rodrig             [e-mail]
Sally Tarquinio          [e-mail]
Fumio Teraoka            [e-mail]
Paul Traina              [e-mail]



                                   2