Comments on draft-jain-mvpn-bgp-sitetype-attribute-00.txt
Eric Rosen <erosen@cisco.com> Fri, 17 May 2013 14:49 UTC
Return-Path: <erosen@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B79D321F9579 for <l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 May 2013 07:49:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D3GAL7u7ojvD for <l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 May 2013 07:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B86D421F9434 for <l3vpn@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 May 2013 07:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2954; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1368802141; x=1370011741; h=from:to:subject:reply-to:date:message-id; bh=lQkXJiOprF94DNiM6/B/1VOHdfsgKZJOeqt3o6ao93Y=; b=RRG35s0X2MSJnthDN8XMlg9JpqCOto2a0uxdTZdHyS1RndAfwYGW3la+ lZ6xsaB9breVmTDOhF1qXEwrlQKLrs7QiDwK7xBi4a31S2RMJfclO+Hr1 8otKzq8OuVfwe6MKdTa8F0gC3gB32Gjp76VY/XNhuCP6eNYBRXFCbUjfG o=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,692,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="211882185"
Received: from rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com ([173.37.113.193]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 May 2013 14:48:58 +0000
Received: from erosen-linux.cisco.com (erosen-linux.cisco.com [161.44.70.34]) by rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4HEmviO010497 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 17 May 2013 14:48:58 GMT
Received: from erosen-linux (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by erosen-linux.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r4HEmvC2025778; Fri, 17 May 2013 10:48:57 -0400
From: Eric Rosen <erosen@cisco.com>
To: L3VPN <l3vpn@ietf.org>
Subject: Comments on draft-jain-mvpn-bgp-sitetype-attribute-00.txt
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3.1; nmh 1.5; GNU Emacs 24.3.1
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 10:48:57 -0400
Message-ID: <25777.1368802137@erosen-linux>
X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: erosen@cisco.com
List-Id: <l3vpn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/l3vpn>, <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l3vpn>
List-Post: <mailto:l3vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3vpn>, <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 14:49:07 -0000
I have a few comments on draft-jain-mvpn-bgp-sitetype-attribute-00.txt. This draft seems to assume the following combination of circumstances: 1. Each VRF of a given MVPN originates an Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D route. 2. Each such route contains a PMSI Tunnel attribute specifying a tunnel of type "RSVP-TE P2MP LSP" or of type "Ingress Replication". 3. Some of the VRFs are connected only to sites that have multicast senders but no multicast receivers. (It is not clear from the draft whether this is supposed to be known by provisioning, or learned dynamically.) According to the procedures of RFC6514, each such VRF will become the root of an inclusive P-tunnel (e.g.,an RSVP-TE P2MP LSP), and will add the other VRFs as leaf nodes. This draft proposes that if a VRF, say VRF1, has no receivers, it should add a "sender-only attribute" to its Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D route. Then if another VRF, say VRF2, imports VRF1's Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D route, VRF2 will know not to add VRF1 to the inclusive P-tunnel of which VRF2 is the root. The draft does not actually point out that its applicability is limited to the case where the tunnel type is RSVP-TE or Ingress Replication, but its procedures do not make any sense otherwise. The draft also fails to point out that its applicability is restricted to the case where the inclusive P-tunnels are not segmented, though this may be inferred from the fact that there are no procedures given for Inter-AS I-PMSI A-D routes. The draft also needs to point out that its procedures will not work properly if PIM is the C-multicast protocol. The proposed new attribute has three values ("sender only", "receiver only", "both"), and lots of extra bits, but as far as I can tell the attribute has no effect at all unless it is set to "sender only". In any event, I don't believe this mechanism is needed, as the problem addressed by the draft can already be solved, using the existing standards, as follows: - All VRFs originate the Intra-AS I-PMSI A-D routes without including a PMSI Tunnel attribute. - All VRFs attached to sites with senders Originate a (C-*,C-*) S-PMSI A-D route (RFC6625) with a PMSI Tunnel Attribute. (VRFs attached to sites without senders should not originate the wildcard route.) Then the existing procedures from RFCs 6514 and 6625 already ensure that VRF1 will not get added to a P-tunnel rooted at VRF2 unless VRF1 actually has interest in a C-flow from VRF2. Problem solved, no new standards needed. Note that if VRF2 is attached to a site with senders, the procedures in the draft will add VRF1 to the P-tunnel rooted at VRF2 even if VRF1 does not have interest in any C-flow from any of VRF2's senders. If the goal is to optimize the amount of tunnel state in the core, the use of the wildcard S-PMSI is more optimal than the procedures proposed in the draft.
- Comments on draft-jain-mvpn-bgp-sitetype-attribut… Eric Rosen
- RE: Comments on draft-jain-mvpn-bgp-sitetype-attr… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: Comments on draft-jain-mvpn-bgp-sitetype-attr… Eric Rosen