Subject: [pim] Cisco Assert behavior

From: Matt Almgren <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:29:35 -0800

After running several tests with Cisco and other routers, and by following
the draft v3, I have noticed a few things that Cisco is not doing correctly.
I am curious if this is the correct behavior, or if Cisco is just not
following the draft, or if a newer release of IOS will correct these issues:

1. Cisco does not send an assert cancel message when he receives a Prune
(S,G) or (*,G) for the group to which he is Assert Winner for.

2. When Cisco is assert winner, he does not sent an Assert message every 177
seconds.  

According to the draft, the first one I believe must be done.  However, the
second one is optional...the word "should" is used to explain the expire
timer.  

I am currently testing this with:
IOS (tm) C2600 Software (C2600-IS-M), Version 12.1(6), RELEASE SOFTWARE
(fc1)

Any feedback on Cisco behavior would be appreciated.

Thanks - Matt

                  \\\|///
                 \\ - - //
                  ( @ @ )
  /------------oOOo-(_)-oOOo------------\
  |            Matt Almgren             |
  |            PLURIS, INC.             |
  |            [email-masked]      |
  |            (408) 861-4216           |
  \------------------------Oooo---------/
           oooO            (   )
          (   )             ) /
           \ (             (_/
            \_)

_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
[email-masked]
http://catarina.usc.edu/mailman/listinfo/pim

---

From: Mark Handley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 13:07:03 -0800

>second one is optional...the word "should" is used to explain the expire

Both of these are points where the new spec differs from RFC 2362
behavior.  Things are more robust if you do them, but nothing will
break if you don't - you'll just get periodic flooding and/or assert
state hanging around when it's no longer needed.

I would hope that Cisco will implement the new spec functionality
before too long, but this isn't a serious bug, and as the new spec is not
yet an RFC you can't really fault them.

BTW the -05 draft (shortly to appear in the I-D archives) is now
stable, with the one exception of the use of IPsec for authentication.

Cheers,
	Mark

---

From: Isidor Kouvelas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 17:08:45 -0800

Assert cancel messages as well as periodic asserts are features that
were added as part of the PIM spec rewrite effort. Care has been taken
during the writing of the new spec to maintain compatibility with
existing implementations conforming to RFC2362. IOS is in the process
of migrating from RFC2362 to the latest specification and does not
implement these features yet.

thanks
I