[Xorp-hackers] PIM-SM / PIM-Bidir doubt about (*,G) entries.

chintamani wandhre chintamanisw at gmail.com
Mon Mar 5 07:57:25 PST 2007


On 2/19/07, Pavlin Radoslavov <pavlin at icir.org> wrote:
>
> > As per your reply regarding setting the bidir-bit so as to differentiate
> > between the PIM-SM and PIM-Bidir (*,G) entries ,we are not very clear
> about
> > how the (*,G) entries are stored in PIM_SM as per your
> implementation.(We
> > tried searching for those in PIM_MRE.hh ,PIM.h,IPv4.h.)So we are unable
> to
> > decide the setting of the Bidir-bit for (*,G) entries.
> >
> > Can we use a flag along with the (*,G) entries and store both of them
> > together in the templates????
>
> The PimMre class is defined in pim_mre.hh. This class is used for
> any type of multicast routing entries, so you have to add the
> bidir flag to that class.
>
>

          Till now we have enabled enable_pim_bidir  flag by using config
file (pim.tp) & now we are able to use this flag to check
is_pim_bidir_enable in PimNode.cc. Also we have managed to add
PIM_BIDIR_CAPABLE flag in pim_proto_hello.cc !!!!
          Sir we are thinking of using the same flag(is_pim_bidir_enable) to
maintain the (*,G) entries in PIM-MRE class.If this flag is enabled then we
are going to consider every (*,G) entry for pim-bidir. Please validate us!!

Thanking you in anticipation
 -Shamita
-Ashish
-chintamani
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/pipermail/xorp-hackers/attachments/20070305/90845e16/attachment.html 


More information about the Xorp-hackers mailing list