RFC 6226: PIM Group-to-Rendezvous-Point Mapping
In plain English — editorial summary, not part of the RFC
Each Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) router in a PIM domain that supports Any Source Multicast (ASM) maintains Group-to-RP mappings that are used to identify a Rendezvous Point (RP) for a specific multicast group. PIM-SM has defined an algorithm to choose a RP from the Group-to-RP mappings learned using various mechanisms. This algorithm does not consider the PIM mode and the mechanism through which a Group-to-RP mapping was learned. This document defines a standard algorithm to deterministically choose between several Group-to-RP mappings for a specific group. This document first explains the requirements to extend the Group-to-RP mapping algorithm and then proposes the new algorithm. [STANDARDS-TRACK]
Document record
- Document ID
- RFC6226
- Published
- May 2011
- Authors
- B. Joshi; A. Kessler; D. McWalter
- Status
- PROPOSED STANDARD
- Stream
- IETF
- Area
- rtg
- Pages
- 11
- Also known as
- —
- Updates:
- RFC 4601
Topics
Related documents
Ranked automatically by shared keywords, IETF area and stream — not by editorial selection.
- RFC 2385Protection of BGP Sessions via the TCP MD5 Signature OptionObsoleted
August 1998
- RFC 6283Extensible Markup Language Evidence Record Syntax (XMLERS)Current
July 2011
- RFC 5925The TCP Authentication OptionCurrent
June 2010
- RFC 4896Signaling Compression (SigComp) Corrections and ClarificationsCurrent
June 2007
- RFC 3485The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and Session Description Protocol (SDP) Static Dictionary for Signaling Compression (SigComp)Updated
March 2003
- RFC 3217Triple-DES and RC2 Key WrappingCurrent
December 2001
- RFC 3058Use of the IDEA Encryption Algorithm in CMSCurrent
February 2001
- RFC 9416Security Considerations for Transient Numeric Identifiers Employed in Network ProtocolsCurrent
July 2023
Also filed under
About this page
The document record above — title, authors, date, status, stream, area, relationships, DOI and errata — is imported verbatim from the public RFC Editor index. The “in plain English” section is editorial: written by The metasystema editorial team, not part of the RFC. Where the two differ, the RFC text governs.
Last checked against the RFC Editor index on . RFCs are never revised after publication; changes are issued as new documents.
Data sources · Editorial policy · Report a correction · What is an RFC?