[120785] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Experiences with Comcast Ethernet/Transit service
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Holmes,David A)
Mon Jan 4 17:05:34 2010
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 13:56:20 -0800
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.1.00.1001041011210.140@cust11794.lava.net>
From: "Holmes,David A" <dholmes@mwdh2o.com>
To: "Antonio Querubin" <tony@lava.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
PIM-snooping is not in the MEF specs, but should be if multicast is to
work properly over a carrier's Ethernet service. Regardless of the
specs, RFPs and other user requirements for Ethernet services should
include a "must have" clause requiring PIM-snooping functionality.=20
-----Original Message-----
From: Antonio Querubin [mailto:tony@lava.net]=20
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 12:13 PM
To: Holmes,David A
Cc: Brandon Galbraith; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Experiences with Comcast Ethernet/Transit service
On Mon, 4 Jan 2010, Holmes,David A wrote:
> I do not know of Comcast's Ethernet services specifically, but a
general=20
> problem with carrier Ethernet services that are based upon the Metro=20
> Ethernet Forum (MEF) is that PIM-snooping is not implemented for=20
> multicast traffic. The absence of PIM-snooping results in the
carrier's=20
> Ethernet service operating like a 1990's style Ethernet hub in which=20
> (S,G) multicast packets are incorrectly flooded out all user ports.
Not implemented because it's not in the MEF specs or not implemented=20
because of carrier operational practice?
Antonio Querubin
808-545-5282 x3003
e-mail/xmpp: tony@lava.net
