[Xorp-hackers] PIM and IGMP

[Weaver John-JWEAVER1]

Sounds great! Thanks!

We will not be using IGMPv3 for a while so that will not be a problem.  The
other question is about seperating BGP, RIP, etc from the IGMP and PIM.  Can
we build the project without these?  I am looking for ways to reduce code
size and not sure if XORP can be picked apart?

Little nervous about the whole C++ thing as I am a C developer and our last
PIM/IGMP product was in C.  Guess I am going to have to ramp up fairly
quickly.  My hope is through this experience I can become an active
contributor.  I have working with switch/router hardware and drivers for the
last 5 years.  Would really like to get some of the hardware we use and fire
up and actual full fledged router with it.

Thanks,
John

-----Original Message-----
From: Pavlin Radoslavov
To: Weaver John-JWEAVER1
Cc: xorp-hackers@icir.org
Sent: 7/5/05 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Xorp-hackers] PIM and IGMP 

> Hello all.  I am a newbie to this project and looking for some info.
I am a
> developer at Motorola and just recently got screwed over by a vendor
on some
> protocol stacks and licensing issues.  As opposed to fighting them on
it, I
> proposed to find an open source project and try and integrate the
software
> into our code.
> Our project is basically a DSLAM chip that we need to run PIM and IGMP
on.
> We will be running Linux with the 2.6.10 kernel.  One question I have
is is
> PIM, IGMP, and the route manage stable enough to attempt this?  Can
PIM and

I believe they are reasonably stable with one small caveat (see
below).

Currently the lastest release is 1.1, but there are several bug
fixes in the lastest PIM-SM code in CVS so in general I recommend to
use the lastest CVS code.
However, in the last 1 week or so we did a number of changes to the
rtrmgr and in the process we probably introduced few bugs that are
in process of being fixed.

Therefore, I'd recommend to start playing with the 1.1 release code
to get feeling how things are working (or with, say, 2 weeks old CVS
code). By the time you are ready to start integrating XORP with your
product we should have fixed and tested the rtrmgr code in CVS and
then you can use the lastest CVS code (or the forthcoming 1.2
release).
In general, I would highly recommend you that in your final product
you use the lastest post-1.1 code from CVS because of the PIM-SM bug
fixes (which usually are not noticeable, but should be applied if
you are to build a high quality product).

> IGMP be seperated from the rest of the functionality or would I have
to load
> everything and just not start them?  Anyone think of any big pitfalls
of
> going down the XORP route?

In general, the IGMP and PIM-SM modules are logically independent
from the rest of XORP, and you can run them without running, say,
static_routes, RIP or BGP.
If you configure only the multicast-related modules in XORP, then
the rtrmgr will start only the relevant modules: the FEA/MFEA, RIB,
MLD/IGMP, PIM-SM and FIB2MRIB.

The only pitfall that comes to mind is that currently we don't have
IGMPv3/MLDv2 implemented in case you need it (we have only IGMPv1,2
and MLDv1). Implementing IGMPv3/MLDv2 is on our roadmap
(http://www.xorp.org/roadmap.html), but we are not there yet.

If you decide to use XORP, please let us know if you run into any
issues so we can try to fix them.

Pavlin