Subject: Re: Re: [magma] IGMP report suppression

From: [email-masked]
Date: 05 Nov 2006 21:01:55 +0100

Hello,

I hope that you do not mind that I has joined your discussion.

I was recently studying IGMPv3 quite hard in order to get all ins and outs of
this protocol version. I agree with the preceding speaker that in case of
IGMPv1 and v2 reports are suppressed in order to reduce the traffic. I also
share the view that there is no point to suppress receiver Reports messages in
case of IGMPv3 due to the issue with sources.

However I not quite get the intention of the second part of the email. Let's
extend the example presented in the first reply. Assume that we have Ethernet
segment with then receivers, ten groups and 100 sources in each group. As it
was mentioned earlier we will have 10 Report messages in reply to Query message
in case of IGMPv1 and v2. Each Report message will concern to different group.
Due to report suppression only one receiver will answer per group and the
Reports will be sent per group address.

In case of IGMPv3 situation is a bit different. All router will answer to Query
message but they will not sent separate Report message for each group. Each one
of receivers will sent just one Report message, on address 224.0.0.22,
containing information about reception stage for each of 10 groups. Since there
is only one message sent by receiver it has information about many groups.
Moreover information for each group contains list of sources (in our case there
are 100 sources so the list can be quite long). As a result Report messages in
case of IGMPv3 are quite large. For that reason RFC 3376 states:

"Instead of using a
single interface timer, implementations are recommended to spread transmission
of such Report messages over the interval (0, [Max Resp Time])."

Advising to not set single Report message in response to Query but divide it
and sent it spread over some time interval. Nevertheless it does not seem to me
that this behavior is similar to behavior of  IGMPv1 and v2 because all receivers will sent Report message for
one particular group. Not like in case of IGMPv1 and v2 where only one router
answers per group. What are your views on that? Do you are with me?

Regards

Tomasz Bartczak
Christy L Norman napisał(a):

I agree with the answer to Parit's question.
IGMPv1 and v2 reports can be suppressed to reduce unnecessary traffic.
However, in regards to the reason for the absence of report suppression
in v3 - I believe it is due to the presence of sources in an IGMPv3 report.
One record could easily be omitted from a report (record suppression?).
All listeners to a group may have different sources making up their per-interface
states and to check the sources of  all hosts' reports would be a
bit of work for the host.

In addition to this reason, RFC 2236
states in 5.2,  "Instead of using a single
interface timer, implementations are recommended to spread transmission
of such Report messages over the interval (0, [Max Resp Time])."
In this case, the operation will be much like IGMPv1 & v2 - but
report suppression isn't required if you happen to be implementing that
method of reporting - because of the issue with the sources.

Do you agree?

- Christy

Princy Elizabeth <[email-masked]>

11/02/2006 11:32 PM

To

P K S <[email-masked]>,
[email-masked]

cc

Subject

Re: [magma] IGMP report suppression

IGMP V1 and V2 reports are sent per group. Consider a
LAN with 10 hosts each interested in the same 10 groups. If reports suppression
were not employed, every Query interval there would be 10 reports sent
out by each of the 10 hosts ==> 100 reports which unnecessarily increase
the traffic on the LAN. For the router, it is sufficient to know that there
is one interested member for a group on the LAN. So 1 report per group
would have sufficed. This precisely is what is done through report suppression.
In IGMP V3, a single report can contain the report for all the groups a
host is interested in. Thus there is no need for report suppression here
since the number of reports would be generally, equal to the number of
hosts only.

I hope that clarifies your query.

- Princy

P K S <[email-masked]> wrote:

Why is the IGMP report suppression required
in the first place?

Regards

Parit

_______________________________________________

magma mailing list

[email-masked]

https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/magma

Get your email and see which of your friends are online
- Right on the new
Yahoo.com _______________________________________________

magma mailing list

[email-masked]

https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/magma

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Jestes kierowca? To poczytaj! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f199e

_______________________________________________
magma mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/magma