Re: [Bier] [pim] PIM light (draft-ietf-pim-light) and PORT (RFC6559)

Agree with Hooman's comments. 

I don't think the TCP-based connection should be mandatory in PIM light. 

Serveral methods may apply to this requirement but it can be in a separate draft.

Thanks,

Sandy

Original

From: Bidgoli,Hooman(Nokia-CA/Ottawa) <hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>;pim@ietf.org <pim@ietf.org>;Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>;
Cc: bier@ietf.org <bier@ietf.org>;
Date: 2022年11月09日 23:15
Subject: Re: [pim] [Bier] PIM light (draft-ietf-pim-light) and PORT (RFC6559)

_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
pim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim

Hi Alvaro

When would a operator wants to use RFC 6559 over datagram PIM? I would imagine the same scenarios would be applicable to PIM Light.

My point is that IMO TCP vs regular PIM is a separate discussion and it might warrant its own informational draft, which I would be happy to initiate.

But I don’t see how this is PIM Light specific.

Thanks

Hooman

From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> 
 Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2022 6:04 AM
 To: pim@ietf.org; Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com>; Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
 Cc: bier@ietf.org
 Subject: Re: [pim] [Bier] PIM light (draft-ietf-pim-light) and PORT (RFC6559)

FWIW, if an implementation choice, I would like to see considerations about when it should be used and when it might not be required (provide additional benefits).

Thanks!

Alvaro. 

 From: Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com>
 Date: November 9, 2022 at 10:59:11 AM
 To: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, pim@ietf.org <pim@ietf.org>
 CC: bier@ietf.org <bier@ietf.org>
 Subject:  Re: [pim] [Bier] PIM light (draft-ietf-pim-light) and PORT (RFC6559)

Hi Toerless 

 I had a quick read of RFC6559, first read I don't see an issue supporting PIM light for this RFC. 

 That said I am not in favor of the wording that PIM Light "MUST" be over TCP. I think this is a implementation choice. 
 PIM light should work over both and it should be a implementation choice. 

 So I think the wording should be PIM light would work with RFC 6559 as well and it is agnostic to the layer 4 transport 

 Thanks 
 Hooman 

 -----Original Message----- 
 From: BIER <bier-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Toerless Eckert 
 Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2022 5:01 AM 
 To: pim@ietf.org 
 Cc: bier@ietf.org 
 Subject: [Bier] PIM light (draft-ietf-pim-light) and PORT (RFC6559) 

 Repeating here on the list what i said on the mike @IETF115, PIM, also Cc' BIER WG as hopefully a beneficiary of this work (draft-ietf-pim-light). 

 We really had a lot of reliability problems under reconvergence of PIM with large amounts of stte which are well applicable as a problem to the target use-cases of PIM light, especially with BIER which will allow up to support a lot of state much better. Thousands of PIM joins that under routing reconvergence events have to be buffered as a huge burst and/or vendor specific pacing that reduces convergence performance. 

 We solved these problems with mLDP and BGP signaling instead of PIM, and we also then solved them for PIM via PIM over TCP (RFC6559). 

 I would really like to see: 

 a) The authors/WG check if/what if any issues threre would be to 
 use PORT with pIM light. I hope/expect none, but if there are, 
 lets discuss. 

 b) Include a requirement that PIM light MUST default to use PORT 
 and MAY support datagram PIM encapsulation. 

 Aka: i really see no reason to continue to use datagram encap with PIM light, so the "MAY" is really just for unforeseen cases. 

 Cheers 
 Toerless 

 _______________________________________________ 
 BIER mailing list 
 BIER@ietf.org 
 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier 

 _______________________________________________ 
 pim mailing list 
 pim@ietf.org 
 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim