Re: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation poll for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-03

Hi Vinod

Thank you for your response and that makes sense that this is for SPT mode
only meaning the L3 VPN associated MVPN profile mLDP in band signalling
using BGP AD with pim c-signalling default MDT or default and data mdt
profiles with Type 1 and Type 3 route types and out of band mLDP w/ BGP AD
bgp c-signalling profiles with Type 1,3,6,7 route types the IGMP join
source register that triggers either the inband or out of band signalling
mvpn type 5 route translates the type 5 to msdp AS.

So since the shared tree in the SPT only scenario described in the draft
terminates on the edge CE the msdp mesh group between all the CEs that
propagate the SA to all msdp peersfor the RP control plane multicast inter
domain routing this new mvpn type 5 msdp sa is translated and intercepts
the msdp TCP session and inserts the SA into the SA message propagated to
the msdp peers in the mesh group.

Since the source register happens at the edge to the FHR and when a
receiver builds its shared tree at the CE edge domain once the ASM anycast
RP/msdp peering router receives the join the SA is triggered to be
propagated following the msdp peer rpf check rules for mesh group peers
which bypass the peer rpf check rules sbd non mesh group peers which follow
the peer rpf check rules and propagates the SA from the CE edge to all msdp
mesh and non mesh group peers within the L3 vpn.  So since msdp SA is by
design sits in the control plane separate from the LMDT (Labeled mulricast
distribution tree) data plane and so is propagated per MSDP peer RPF check
rules i am wondering what use case is this draft addressing whrere the msdp
SA is not propagated and requires assistance of this new mvpn type 5 route
translation to msdp sa.

Regards

Gyan

On Sat, Sep 28, 2019, 3:31 AM Vinod N Kumar <vinkumar@juniper.net> wrote:

> Procedures described in this Draft are applicable to Section "14.
> Supporting PIM-SM without Inter-Site Shared C-Trees" of RFC6514 i.e MVPN
> operating in SPT-only Mode.
>
>
>
> In MVPN SPT-only mode , MVPN Source Active route (MVPN Type-5 route) is
> functionally similar to MSDP Source Active message.
>
> The Draft defines procedures to translate MVPN Source Active route (MVPN
> Type-5 route) to MSDP Source Active message.
>
> Procedures defined are to facilitate building SPT (Source Tree) not shared
> tree.
>
>
>
>
>
> Snippet from Section 2.1 of Draft.
>
> Section "13. Switching from a Shared C-Tree to a Source C-Tree" of
> [RFC6514] specifies the MVPN Source Active route procedures for that mode,
> but those MVPN SA routes (Type-5 routes) are replacement for PIM-ASM assert
> and (s,g,rpt) prune mechanisms, not for source discovery purpose.
>
> MVPN/MSDP SA interoperation for the "rpt-spt" mode is outside of the scope
> of this document. In the rest of the document, the "spt-only" mode is
> assumed.
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Vinod Kumar.
>
>
>
> *From: *BESS <bess-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Gyan Mishra <
> hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Saturday, 28 September 2019 at 7:11 AM
> *To: *Vinod N Kumar <vinkumar=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
> *Cc: *"Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)" <matthew.bocci@nokia.com>, "
> draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation@ietf.org" <
> draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation@ietf.org>, Lenny Giuliano <
> lenny@juniper.net>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>, "Jeffrey (Zhaohui)
> Zhang" <zzhang=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation poll for
> draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-03
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> As a technical representative of Verizon from an operator and network
> designer perspective I support the draft as it stands and don’t know of any
> non disclosed IPRs.
>
>
>
> I have a few questions.
>
>
>
> So I agree this draft is very useful and fills a gap or problem where
> customers using ASM do not have a local RP and their shared tree needs to
> traverse the core.
>
>
>
> I think for most customers it’s easy to change their location of their ASM
> anycast RP so it’s local at every edge and then build your msdp mesh group
> between all your CE edges and boom “no shared trees” over the mpls core
> MVPN.
>
>
>
> From reading the draft it sounds like the Msdp SA is detected and mapped
> to the mvpn for the shared tree to get built.
>
>
>
> So if your shared tree terminates locally at the edge CE and the edge see
> is running msdp then you would never have a shared tree. ^*,G that would
> traverse the core.
>
>
>
> If their is an msdp session tcp/639 am not sure I understand how that
> would be detected also that is RP control plane and not the data plane
> forwarding.  Also how are you going to do SPT switchover and from shared to
> SPT tree.  Also then I guess you would need to provide option for RP
>  infinity to stay permanently on the shared tree.
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Gyan S. Mishra
>
> IT Network Engineering & Technology
>
> Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ)
>
> 13101 Columbia Pike FDC1 3rd Floor
>
> Silver Spring, MD 20904
>
> United States
>
> Phone: 301 502-1347
>
> Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com
>
> www.linkedin.com/in/GYAN-MISHRA-RS-SP-MPLS-IPV6-EXPERT
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.linkedin.com/in/GYAN-MISHRA-RS-SP-MPLS-IPV6-EXPERT__;!8WoA6RjC81c!R-Artm4_BH690XpxiqYhdAAbHY4bIPD9i8S_C6ZDn4hHE6LlPAewrMVT12UjUHXi$>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Sep 24, 2019, at 12:07 AM, Vinod N Kumar <
> vinkumar=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Not aware of any IPR related to mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation.
> Juniper has an implementation of this draft.
>
> Regards,
> Vinod Kumar.
>
> On 24/09/19, 12:07 AM, "BESS on behalf of Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <
> bess-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of zzhang=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
> wrote:
>
>    Not aware of any relevant IPR.
>
>    Juniper has an implementation.
>
>    Jeffrey
>
>    -----Original Message-----
>    From: Lenny Giuliano <lenny@juniper.net>
>    Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 3:07 PM
>    To: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <matthew.bocci@nokia.com>
>    Cc: bess@ietf.org; draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation@ietf.org
>    Subject: Re: [bess] WG Last Call, IPR and Implementation poll for
> draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-03
>
>
>    Not aware of any IPR related to
> draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation
>
>
>    On Tue, 10 Sep 2019, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) wrote:
>
>    |
>    | Hello Working Group,
>    |
>    |
>    |
>    | This email starts a two week Working Group Last Call on
>    | draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-03 [1].
>    |
>    |
>    |
>    | This poll runs until 25 September 2019.
>    |
>    |
>    |
>    | We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies
>    | to this Document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance
>    | with IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and
>    | 5378 for more details).
>    |
>    |
>    |
>    | If you are listed as an Author or a Contributor of this document
>    | please respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are
> aware of any relevant undisclosed IPR. The Document won't progress without
> answers from all the Authors and Contributors.
>    |
>    |
>    |
>    | There are currently no IPR disclosures against the document.
>    |
>    |
>    |
>    | If you are not listed as an Author or a Contributor, then please
> explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been
> disclosed in conformance with IETF rules.
>    |
>    |
>    |
>    | We are also polling for any existing implementation as per [2].
>    |
>    |
>    |
>    |     Thank you,
>    |
>    |     Matthew and Stephane
>    |
>    |
>    |
>    |     [1]
>    |
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interope__;!8WoA6RjC81c!U8aCsuRpFMIP3TlcIw1_NuPboayld-LeUp2fk-4GbqPAhszKQS6xcSbHZR3Kw5Qb$
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interope__;!8WoA6RjC81c!U8aCsuRpFMIP3TlcIw1_NuPboayld-LeUp2fk-4GbqPAhszKQS6xcSbHZR3Kw5Qb$>
>    | ration/
>    |
>    |     [2]
>    |
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw__;!8WoA6RjC81c!U8aCsuRpFMIP3TlcIw1_NuPboayld-LeUp2fk-4GbqPAhszKQS6xcSbHZekFkSyU$
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/cG3X1tTqb_vPC4rg56SEdkjqDpw__;!8WoA6RjC81c!U8aCsuRpFMIP3TlcIw1_NuPboayld-LeUp2fk-4GbqPAhszKQS6xcSbHZekFkSyU$>
>    |
>    |
>    |
>    |
>    |
>    |
>    |
>
>    _______________________________________________
>    BESS mailing list
>    BESS@ietf.org
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess__;!8WoA6RjC81c!U8aCsuRpFMIP3TlcIw1_NuPboayld-LeUp2fk-4GbqPAhszKQS6xcSbHZR5oAE0v$
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess__;!8WoA6RjC81c!U8aCsuRpFMIP3TlcIw1_NuPboayld-LeUp2fk-4GbqPAhszKQS6xcSbHZR5oAE0v$>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> BESS mailing list
> BESS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess__;!8WoA6RjC81c!R-Artm4_BH690XpxiqYhdAAbHY4bIPD9i8S_C6ZDn4hHE6LlPAewrMVT10UBDSje$>
>
>