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

Pavlin Radoslavov pavlin at icir.org
Mon Mar 5 09:46:27 PST 2007


chintamani wandhre <chintamanisw at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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

Please call me just Pavlin :)

> 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!!

I believe this is the right approach.

Regards,
Pavlin


> Thanking you in anticipation
>  -Shamita
> -Ashish
> -chintamani
> _______________________________________________
> Xorp-hackers mailing list
> Xorp-hackers at icir.org
> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers



More information about the Xorp-hackers mailing list