IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-zzhang-bess-bgp-multicast-03

Leonard Giuliano <lenny@juniper.net> Wed, 08 January 2020 22:15 UTC

Return-Path: <lenny@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bess@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4FA512010C; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 14:15:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net header.b=SDm9tey/; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=juniper.net header.b=foscrQWb
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id loO-uOGLAcqx; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 14:15:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com [208.84.65.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9597412003E; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 14:15:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108157.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 008M4rf4018643; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 14:15:54 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : in-reply-to : message-id : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=PPS1017; bh=7sNezKwBuIWD0D0n5lM2OJQ2g8H4HS+cpUiroAIrTjs=; b=SDm9tey/cp8sOPJwc9LUtR46Ke+cIA3JprMpsAk9a7iaMOXrDfdhKFnWGp0lIZlcnORF JYD8nJJYbPD/MRGCDoi6slf3Ey5aDAQ7fLbgP+aYiyUJM1vkuQAkSki148JhyqiCx2PL c19XKvykCKza7OL6oMMQmf4QTHWGc6DkgbMfAioH1MZeQttpJD+nuGImzIXN8yFYLBPj DkmLBZRe7Mz3vXA/Yrpc9vhsu9+RCo7EtiT04XxU4Cb/bSfWEl5yVF/UFURG32n5Z8lf PIDkt8fvRKK+VtYK61+99Cc7E4RfWk8BwWLejWWowhqE/y0SNahynjrbzGZzz2wltIx6 Dg==
Received: from nam12-bn8-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn8nam12lp2172.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.55.172]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2xdk3pgjvy-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 08 Jan 2020 14:15:54 -0800
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=FW+Af6o6/FF7UqNH0clgCONx3aYnyTBu0VkV+YiDT1UjCCOaeCoK+DSEiwkD8V1qqlALIKsBcGkSgRAhFOAHbnPc8usMXf8HX9e5WK4MqRgi0WQTFpWFEDIv4BTcPIjGP8sNZRTH4T+jLDO0PEJNCirHBtGJ1p4Pbsc/7A4JUCHnEn2pKaFt+l5UnBnMn94OxzBqq1UeMWDCjSd9hBh7h3dXbr063YIjVCaIPaM3N7XKj/0uVsOOWl4vCCUkPvrauu2H8TpdF2LYqBN8Sd/oK5prsKccBNcB25CXyxs3qLdPYArqof5av9SSC3bSvOsFToMZVa7GE6vNPTSLRAT0Kw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=7sNezKwBuIWD0D0n5lM2OJQ2g8H4HS+cpUiroAIrTjs=; b=Rurva3RRmBJoF/SOPGtH/3AVkQNVZ5bpFTBKaF6naU2NsdYvy1EQIgXtHL0WTMaJS3hlfEZNCapKwTjg77R2cSAe200noAhuoxrdOdy2fJtoN0+l0fVMYKvB5R10yZW2DQ5GEPohNqXuTlwWBeiZbz0mqx0+8hU6wz+wa8HuxPXjwNzJUuTTxmbqHqRQijO3P86FqEppjC4Hgb7EspsgqyhqQ+pQrH4mHBReKaBH1PNwcfAm7DrX4f3u37SQBxnwCPagHYA8wQEu7hr+Kh0qU4dJcAUrIrJ0aYKvAc4LAXBTiWSAv5oVPQD8REfx+IFV0ujAUtF2FjzRuUUux/jZHQ==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=softfail (sender ip is 66.129.242.12) smtp.rcpttodomain=ietf.org smtp.mailfrom=juniper.net; dmarc=fail (p=reject sp=reject pct=100) action=oreject header.from=juniper.net; dkim=none (message not signed); arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=7sNezKwBuIWD0D0n5lM2OJQ2g8H4HS+cpUiroAIrTjs=; b=foscrQWbvmdpzrHS7ClyoVlDyPLE4Lz0AV6jiYLX65gcL4Ain94GXFQJ5p96DB5jWv4D/uN5/L8BqygK4kDZAvjcaOzBgBD6vKXR0Ld3Y2tSVX9LKfEwTNCnAUC3Y3FBIR6HsB8jUhgcwNFXkUqLgCqrv+U72mMvAKbsWyqekS8=
Received: from CO2PR05CA0080.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:102:2::48) by BN6PR05MB3443.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:405:45::36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2644.6; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 22:15:52 +0000
Received: from CO1NAM05FT028.eop-nam05.prod.protection.outlook.com (2a01:111:f400:7e50::201) by CO2PR05CA0080.outlook.office365.com (2603:10b6:102:2::48) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2623.5 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 22:15:52 +0000
Received-SPF: SoftFail (protection.outlook.com: domain of transitioning juniper.net discourages use of 66.129.242.12 as permitted sender)
Received: from P-EXFEND-EQX-01.jnpr.net (66.129.242.12) by CO1NAM05FT028.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.96.138) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.20.2623.4 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 22:15:51 +0000
Received: from P-EXBEND-EQX-03.jnpr.net (10.104.8.56) by P-EXFEND-EQX-01.jnpr.net (10.104.8.54) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 14:15:50 -0800
Received: from P-EXBEND-EQX-01.jnpr.net (10.104.8.52) by P-EXBEND-EQX-03.jnpr.net (10.104.8.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 14:15:50 -0800
Received: from p-mailhub01.juniper.net (10.104.20.6) by P-EXBEND-EQX-01.jnpr.net (10.104.8.52) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 14:15:50 -0800
Received: from contrail-ubm-wing.svec1.juniper.net ([10.163.18.88]) by p-mailhub01.juniper.net (8.14.4/8.11.3) with ESMTP id 008MFf1U029643; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 14:15:41 -0800 (envelope-from lenny@juniper.net)
Received: by contrail-ubm-wing.svec1.juniper.net (Postfix, from userid 1709) id 59D55123873; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 14:15:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by contrail-ubm-wing.svec1.juniper.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 451FE12045C; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 14:15:41 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2020 14:15:40 -0800
From: Leonard Giuliano <lenny@juniper.net>
X-X-Sender: lenny@contrail-ubm-wing.svec1.juniper.net
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
CC: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net>, "draft-zzhang-bess-bgp-multicast@ietf.org" <draft-zzhang-bess-bgp-multicast@ietf.org>, "slitkows.ietf@gmail.com" <slitkows.ietf@gmail.com>, "bess-chairs@ietf.org" <bess-chairs@ietf.org>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CABNhwV0KLgEF=7RCxK_X79pFhJYYKbjyozVZxDPxcmGQBogPMw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.2001081404510.21487@contrail-ubm-wing.svec1.juniper.net>
References: <04b001d5c49b$a86ae390$f940aab0$@gmail.com> <CABNhwV325w2aasUqfd5FNofsnLtP=N6ssaBs=aWPZE5+5tAwAQ@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR05MB59819CC6F897DBF293C21983D43F0@MN2PR05MB5981.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CABNhwV0u9gyPJ-KUN8hjeu5EzP6QAKVZbTQAwxTByhzo=++P5Q@mail.gmail.com> <MN2PR05MB5981AFC9690FA6B80DBD45FBD43F0@MN2PR05MB5981.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <CABNhwV0KLgEF=7RCxK_X79pFhJYYKbjyozVZxDPxcmGQBogPMw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e3cb0ff2-54e7-4646-8a04-0dae4ac7b136
X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0
X-MS-Office365-Filtering-HT: Tenant
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:66.129.242.12; IPV:CAL; SCL:-1; CTRY:US; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(39860400002)(396003)(376002)(136003)(346002)(199004)(189003)(70206006)(186003)(81156014)(8676002)(7126003)(70586007)(81166006)(426003)(26005)(2906002)(316002)(336012)(8936002)(54906003)(6916009)(5660300002)(478600001)(4326008)(66574012)(6266002)(356004)(86362001)(26826003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BN6PR05MB3443; H:P-EXFEND-EQX-01.jnpr.net; FPR:; SPF:SoftFail; LANG:en; PTR:InfoDomainNonexistent; A:1; MX:1;
X-MS-PublicTrafficType: Email
X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: 3eeea6a9-aaf8-4d2f-8e2b-08d794885260
X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: BN6PR05MB3443:
X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: <BN6PR05MB34439EF331C75A645FFB5545A43E0@BN6PR05MB3443.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
X-MS-Oob-TLC-OOBClassifiers: OLM:9508;
X-Forefront-PRVS: 02760F0D1C
X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck: 1
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: aPIdTA+FYfZiuc6Mb10F+ozegqbPHo6CUDpWSy+kJglij+uFDOtsxQqfV+1vGnEX7Z6O68lz6JA5oXGlK/EKaR7X6+HKZYljPAgpWRIhVMa3NEXEk+lilC5BZaBSBxNCecgMoqOH8mhtRublDkP3SZwpwbnHmia9+swEjXJ97iAcLbZz4WvGrBGdvNGA4gIVJfK9HavS+6iqYVXr34YH4gu6rCZmFxHPAihvpghliMmYrY15eLy+cB0WNtI+Fokfy5gOAIGWteUJXbMYlKPso0C6Flb8nFAhdhzystRWlLIbwtFApb3AtViQcPttNLIo7TB+tCdm15k1nTZMXOhiwC1jsv9ytZXhVvD1tauspZN+BqizWd2Pt6Hjynro0OUmSNPZITcPFjI5RC5ZQU150YvXCh07ipmovhKTy0jPPrOteYjz37f140VEwL1seomt
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jan 2020 22:15:51.3796 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 3eeea6a9-aaf8-4d2f-8e2b-08d794885260
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4; Ip=[66.129.242.12]; Helo=[P-EXFEND-EQX-01.jnpr.net]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR05MB3443
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.138, 18.0.572 definitions=2020-01-08_07:2020-01-08, 2020-01-08 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 mlxlogscore=999 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 priorityscore=1501 phishscore=0 impostorscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 clxscore=1011 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1910280000 definitions=main-2001080172
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/LE5eoKM90XgWYz6OkKa3DkU8JZI>
Subject: Re: [bess] WG adoption and IPR poll for draft-zzhang-bess-bgp-multicast-03
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <bess.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bess/>
List-Post: <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess>, <mailto:bess-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2020 22:15:58 -0000


On Wed, 8 Jan 2020, Gyan Mishra wrote:

<trimmed>

|     Gyan> Source discovery is only necessary with ASM not SSM. With SSM the receiver is "source" aware so does not require any discovery mechanism.  
| So with SSM which requires IGMPv3 enabled on the receiver last hop router subnets and on the source first hop router subnet for the both to be "source aware" ; for the receiver now to
| send the (S,G) join for the channel since it is now source aware. How the receiver gets that source awareness is from the server URI that the user connects to which has the S,G
| information ; server has to be also  source aware and has S,G channel available that can be joined. With IGMPv3 the packet  accommodate the Source information in the S,G join sent
| along the RPF path to the source. You mention that SSM deployment has been limited but in fact the opposite and reason why ASM is being officially deprecated by the IETF for inter
| domain multicast routing. IPv6 does not even have MSDP support since with ASM MSDP source discovery and propagation is not necessary since no RPs exist all disparate ASM multicast
| domains can now be collapsed into a single SSM domain. ASM MSDP/Anycast has its complexities which is why IPv6 nixed the idea of integrating MSDP into the architecture. Thus IPv6 only
| supports SSM for inter-domain multicast routing. I would keep the comment about ASM complexity which is true but remove mention of SSM.  I would not mention any gains with less state

Actually, Embedded RP provides interdomain ASM for IPv6 and is the reason 
there is no need for MSDP in IPv6.

No one would disagree that SSM is simpler and the ideal way to go, hence 
draft-ietf-mboned-deprecate-interdomain-asm recommends SSM-only for 
interdomain deployments.  Unfortunately, for various (and sometimes 
somewhat valid) reasons, ASM lives on, at least in intradomain 
deployments.  Hence, BGP would still need to cover ASM scenarios, at 
least for these intradomain deployments that still rely on ASM to work.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email