RE: Advancing the Protocol and Morin Drafts

[Thomas Morin <[e-mail]>]

Hi again Maria,

NAPIERALA, MARIA H, ATTLABS :
>
> if the MVPN solution does not lay out the correct foundation to support
> basic multicast capabilities in VPN context like PIM-Bidir, Anycast-RP,
> or anycast sourcing then those capabilities cannot be just added on
> after the fact. They have to be an integral part of the solution.

Let's try to be pragmatic...

Anycast schemes

        Anycast-RP is a requirement formulated in RFC4834 ("SHOULD work
        transparently through a multicast VPN"). Is is true that the
        type of anycast sourcing that you described is not specifically
        covered.
        
        Let's go to the most important point for an operator: both are
        fully supported by draft-ietf-2547bis-mcast. A specific UMH
        selection algorithm that is common to BGP-based and PIM-based
        C-multicast routing, is defined as a "SHOULD" in section 5.1.3.

        If there were to be, at some point in the future, multiple
        proposals to support anycast schemes (pure hypothesis), we could
        certainly cover this in draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations,
        and try to define which one to privilege.
        
        (If you think that solution drafts are lacking in some way to
        properly support anycast schemes, or do not have the proper
        SHOULD/MUST/MAY level, then I think that you should make
        comments  to amend draft-ietf-2547bis-mcast )

Bidir-PIM

        Customer Bidir-PIM is already defined as a SHOULD in RFC4834. It
        is already supported by draft-ietf-2547bis-mcast, by both the
        PIM-based and BGP-based C-multicast routing approaches.  There
        happen to be two approaches defined to support Bidir-PIM
        ("outsourced RPL" in section 11.1, and "partitioned sets of PEs"
        section 11.2).
        
        I note that no contribution what yet proposed by the working
        group to implement in priority one of these approach, and since
        you are interested in the subject, we will certainly welcome a
        contribution on the matter from you.  This is totally 100% in
        the scope of the document evolution that can be expected from
        the document once adopted (obviously we would have welcome a
        contribution before too).
        
Does this address your comments ?

-Thomas