Subject: RE: PIM Snooping

From: "Yuji KAMITE" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 11:00:24 +0900

Hi folks,

> Since there was little, if any, consensus in Vancouver as to the best 
> direction forward with the PIM snooping work, we would like to hear 
> from the WG:
> A) Should we require disabling Join Suppression on CE's?
> B) Should we NOT require disabling Join Suppression on CE's, thereby 
> making the PE a more active element in PIM procedures in a VPLS?
> C) Other, more palatable, suggestions?
> 

Currently, the authors of the requirement document have an opinion neutral between (A) and (B) above.
As stated in 5.1.2 of draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-reqts-00.txt,

   A solution MUST NOT require any special packet processing about
   Layer-3 multicast protocol by the end users.  It MAY require some
   configuration change for minimum necessity though (e.g., turning
   explicit tracking on/off in PIM).
 
IMHO Ideally, a solution should be capable regardless of whether or not CEs are running suppresion.   If it requires some special
configuration changes, it cannot be easily used for unspecified majority.  However, I also have a concern that (B)'s active PE
element possibly requires operational complexity which has not existed so far in the existing VPLS.  Thus intermediate between (A)
and (B).

However, if there should be a serious issue clarified from the solution point of view,
I think it can be incorporated into the requirement consideration as well.

Regards,
-Yuji