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

Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com> Fri, 12 December 2014 21:44 UTC

Return-Path: <linda.dunbar@huawei.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 93AAD1A8549; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 13:44:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 7GbhjOd_fR1P; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 13:44:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA3451A6EF4; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 13:44:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BPZ49124; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 21:44:35 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DFWEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.72) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 21:44:34 +0000
Received: from DFWEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.50]) by dfweml702-chm ([10.193.5.72]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 13:44:27 -0800
From: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@huawei.com>
To: Dino Farinacci <farinacci@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: Comparing LISP multicast with draft-ghanwani-nvo3-app-mcast-framework-01.txt
Thread-Index: AQHQEztPcgLT28AsZ0i/51SzuPuK+5yG6eGAgAVgHLCAAKETgP//lpiQ
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 21:44:28 +0000
Message-ID: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E7D36F@dfweml701-chm>
References: <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E75398@dfweml701-chm> <B52034D4-AAD1-4070-B24A-52E2A7E4DAFC@gmail.com> <4A95BA014132FF49AE685FAB4B9F17F645E7D27F@dfweml701-chm> <447B0BA8-6846-4B5E-96B5-046AA279FB13@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <447B0BA8-6846-4B5E-96B5-046AA279FB13@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.144.144]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/PgN-GcjeaalmVxsRI144Bjc3M4Q
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 21:44:38 -0000

Dino, 

How would you define the term "joined-multicast-entry"?

Literally, I see "joined-multicast-entry" being similar to  "replication-list for a multicast group", (instead of multicast group), correct? 

Linda

-----Original Message-----
From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:farinacci@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 1:56 PM
To: Linda Dunbar
Cc: lisp@ietf.org; nvo3@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Comparing LISP multicast with draft-ghanwani-nvo3-app-mcast-framework-01.txt


> 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