Re: [lisp] Comparing LISP multicast with draft-ghanwani-nvo3-app-mcast-framework-01.txt

Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com> Fri, 12 December 2014 19:57 UTC

Return-Path: <farinacci@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 857261ACF0A; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 11:57:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 bpP9lUaeFEY9; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 11:56:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pd0-x229.google.com (mail-pd0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 408F11ACF7E; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 11:56:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pd0-f169.google.com with SMTP id z10so7823305pdj.0 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 11:56:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=IyXDpqGvLHsXkGtPQDUffpYyzgprw70m6uIrUzoqa2A=; b=CpaSwL4PtA6crRBt+c97F8/FyWE8hIYUoEgaYwQdPlohU+ZOkXgHKDk4/bYO9ZR3bX sGsWgodPbLF9MokXQt7/tEBNqfXyQSfGd6v+N+NUBPDjRsFsKSipwBQ0yP/0pKDe9OZB nLE66xG9iwsFhYKsC/3W5pGYPEH2aIz4kEhu+xj4U3nKLXb99gLDR6eZn/enLi/16E1S q4Bnz629LGP3oTguWBBIHURlR1Kg3ZptU/wzHPEq+RwdO0Zqij2pYPyQkGdto37G5OCb p7J8SYH5lbOZDk3yk1PADxkb6M6M28gB9o9R/zmn+DooIVGeyhTidq+pZEGFyvokyCH+ +lUw==
X-Received: by 10.70.130.108 with SMTP id od12mr29363267pdb.109.1418414204583; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 11:56:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.83] ([207.145.253.66]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id x8sm2281629pdi.7.2014.12.12.11.56.33 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 12 Dec 2014 11:56:44 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
From: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E7D27F@dfweml701-chm>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 11:56:25 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <447B0BA8-6846-4B5E-96B5-046AA279FB13@gmail.com>
References: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E75398@dfweml701-chm> <B52034D4-AAD1-4070-B24A-52E2A7E4DAFC@gmail.com> <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E7D27F@dfweml701-chm>
To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/JvRlHmrYYnZz4K-cq01impJ8uoU
Cc: "nvo3@ietf.org" <nvo3@ietf.org>, "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [lisp] Comparing LISP multicast with draft-ghanwani-nvo3-app-mcast-framework-01.txt
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 19:57:01 -0000

> For the "source replication" description of our draft (section3.2), I can add the following to make it consistent with the LISP approach. Is it OK?
> "The method of receiver-sites registration for a particular multicast-group described in [LISP-Signal-Free] can be used for NVO3. The registrations from different receiver-sites can be merged at the Multicast Service Node (MSN of Section 3.3) or the NVA to assemble a multicast-replication-list inclusive of all remote NVEs to which receivers for a particular multicast-group are attached. The replication-list for each specific multicast entry is maintained either by MSN or NVA. 
> The receiver-sites registration is achieved by egress NVEs performing the IGMP/MLD snooping to maintain which attached Tenant Systems have subscribed to a given IP multicast stream. When the members of a multicast group are outside the NVO3 domain, it is necessary for NVO3 domain gateways to keep track of the remote members of each multicast group.”  
>  
> Please let me know if this description is good enough?

The description is fine but the term "multicast-group" is probably too specific and does not include IGMPv3 and MLDv2 (S,G) specific entries. I would change "multicast-group" to "joined-multicast-entry" and then define what a "joined-multicast-entry" can be.

Dino