Re: [bess] some questions about draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-02 for IGMPv3

Liuyisong <liuyisong@huawei.com> Fri, 13 July 2018 02:55 UTC

Return-Path: <liuyisong@huawei.com>
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 22019127332; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 19:55:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 vo_D_vjflPaw; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 19:55:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (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 2376B130DE3; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 19:55:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LHREML714-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 07F8CD7FF1B1; Fri, 13 Jul 2018 03:54:22 +0100 (IST)
Received: from NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.74) by LHREML714-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Fri, 13 Jul 2018 03:54:21 +0100
Received: from NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::a54a:89d2:c471:ff]) by NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0382.000; Fri, 13 Jul 2018 10:54:09 +0800
From: Liuyisong <liuyisong@huawei.com>
To: "Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)" <mankamis@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy@ietf.org>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>
CC: Zhuangshunwan <zhuangshunwan@huawei.com>, "Yangang (Routing Design)" <yangang@huawei.com>
Thread-Topic: [bess] some questions about draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-02 for IGMPv3
Thread-Index: AQHUGk85tZG99zkCb0KJPrAqWqpnaaSMc0Yg
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 02:54:08 +0000
Message-ID: <D55792544C0AAD429ADA4746FE3504E08413B7AF@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <E2B681B9-C649-4CB2-AFE1-4F9349DD66AE@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <E2B681B9-C649-4CB2-AFE1-4F9349DD66AE@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.172.168]
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_005_D55792544C0AAD429ADA4746FE3504E08413B7AFNKGEML515MBXchi_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bess/OHJyDa0hhmo9YNRJit1M3_TazEI>
Subject: Re: [bess] some questions about draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-02 for IGMPv3
X-BeenThere: bess@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 02:55:11 -0000

Hi Mankamana

      I’ll go to Montreal in IETF 102. I’ll contact you, so we can discuss the question in more detail.

Thanks
Yisong

From: Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) [mailto:mankamis@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 10:14 AM
To: Liuyisong <liuyisong@huawei.com>; draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org
Cc: Zhuangshunwan <zhuangshunwan@huawei.com>; Yangang (Routing Design) <yangang@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [bess] some questions about draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-02 for IGMPv3

Hi Yisong

Would you be present in IETF, we could discuss in person and then update the thread?

Thanks
Mankamana


From: BESS <bess-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:bess-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Liuyisong <liuyisong@huawei.com<mailto:liuyisong@huawei.com>>
Date: Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 4:38 AM
To: "draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy@ietf.org>>, "bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>" <bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org>>
Cc: Zhuangshunwan <zhuangshunwan@huawei.com<mailto:zhuangshunwan@huawei.com>>, "Yangang (Routing Design)" <yangang@huawei.com<mailto:yangang@huawei.com>>
Subject: [bess] some questions about draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-02 for IGMPv3

Hi folks,

I have some questions about the draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-02 for IGMPv3 synchronization

In section 7.2 & 7.3, there are IGMP Join and Leave Synch Route definition as following:
[cid:image003.jpg@01D419FE.B52B2C00][cid:image006.jpg@01D419FE.B52B2C00]

IGMPv3 is very complicated, and it is not very clear to how to construct the IGMP Join/Leave Synch Route in the draft.
Firstly I think only incremental membership information in the IGMP synch route, because the route NLRI can only contain one (S,G) or (*,G)
1.for a simple example:
INCLUDE (A)    BLOCK (B)    INCLUDE (A)             Send Q(G,A*B)
We can use include mode, source A*B, group G in IGMP Leave Synch Routes one by one to notify the other multi-homed PEs.

2.for a more complicated example:
EXCLUDE (X,Y)  TO_EX (A)    EXCLUDE (A-Y,Y*A)       (A-X-Y)=Group Timer
                                                        Delete (X-A)
                                                        Delete (Y-A)
                                                        Send Q(G,A-Y)
                                                        Group Timer=GMI
It is more difficult than example 1.There are 5 actions, and should we use both Join and Leave Synch routes to notify the other multi-homed PEs?
I think we should use:

1) include mode, source A-X-Y, group G in IGMP Join Synch Routes one by one

2) include mode, source X-A, group G in IGMP Join Synch Routes withdraw one by one

3) exclude mode, source Y-A, group G in IGMP Join Synch Routes withdraw one by one

4) include mode, source A-Y, group G in IGMP Leave Synch Routes one by one
Is it appropriate for IGMPv3 Synch route construction in the draft?

3.In IGMPv3, only BLOCK, TO_IN, TO_EX can lead to generate last member query.
Is that mean when the PE only receive BLOCK, TO_IN , TO_EX , it should advertise the leave synch routes to the other multi-homed PEs?


Thanks
Yisong