Re: [MBONED] MBONED WG adoption call for draft-szcl-mboned-redundant-ingress-failover

[[e-mail]]

Hi Gyan, 
Thank you for your comments! 
Please find my answer below with Sandy>.


------------------原始邮件------------------
发件人：GyanMishra
收件人：张征00007940;
抄送人：lenny=[e-mail];[e-mail];[e-mail];
日 期 ：2022年03月14日 22:17
主 题 ：Re: [MBONED] MBONED WG adoption call for draft-szcl-mboned-redundant-ingress-failover

Hi Sandy

Excellent!

Few comments and I would be happy to collaborate with this draft.

RFC 9026 section 4.2 upstream PE behavior describes the 3 modes cold warm and hot root standby below excerpt:

Doing neither step a nor step b for a given (C-S,C-G) is called "cold    root standby".     Doing step a but not step b for a given (C-S,C-G) is called "warm    root standby".     Doing step b (which implies also doing step a) for a given (C-S,C-G)    is called "hot root standby".
In the draft you call it cold warm and hot standby modes.
As you are describing the 3 modes in detail it would be good to call the
exact same names shown above using exact verbiage “root standby”.
Sandy> OK. We will modify it in next version.

Also throughout the descriptions of the 3 modes I would recommend use the same semantics used
in RFC 9026 as well as mention the “Standby PE community”
used to signal the Ingres PE optimization.
Sandy> In fact we think that the IR and ER may more suitable for general deployment. Because in some cases there may be no VPN deployment. But we can discuss it and find the most suitable word.

Also in section 3.2 of your draft I would recommend mentioned RFC 9026 updates to RFC 8562 P2MP procedure IANA allocation for BFD discriminator optional transitive attribute describing the upstream and downstream procedure in RFC 9026 section 3.1.6.1 and 3.1.6.2 and how that is utilized in the three modes bringing it all together.
Sandy> Good suggestion. We'll consider to add some description for it in next version.

Also in the abstract and introduction I would mention RFC 9026 as that is the sole goal of the draft is to describe the details of the MVPN optimizations for failover redundancy.
Sandy> The MVPN usage is just one usage of the redundant ingress failover. This draft can be used in the environment without MVPN deployment.

I think it maybe good to also describe the gaps even with existing RSVP-TE P2MP FRR link and node protection and MoFRR as well as local protection mechanisms LFA / RLFA / TI-LFA  used by operators for triple play services, gap that still exists in failover  which as well now resolved with MVPN control plane optimization provided by RFC 9026.
Sandy> Good suggestion. We will consider how to describe it in future version.
Best regards,
Sandy

Kind Regards

Gyan


On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 4:18 AM <[e-mail]> wrote:
Hi Gyan,
Thanks Gyan!
The three stanby modes mentioned in RFC9026 are discussed in this draft detailedly.
The signaling part described in this draft absolutely suitable for the BGP signaling in RFC9026.
Best regards,
Sandy
------------------原始邮件------------------
发件人：GyanMishra
收件人：[e-mail];
抄送人：Leonard Giuliano;MBONED WG;
日 期 ：2022年03月14日 13:06
主 题 ：Re: [MBONED] MBONED WG adoption call for draft-szcl-mboned-redundant-ingress-failover
_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
I support WG adoption.
Question for the authors if RFC 9026 MVPN Fast upstream failover helps with the redundant IR failover issue presented in the draft?
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9026
Kind Regards
Gyan
On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 9:48 PM [e-mail] <[e-mail]> wrote:
Hi Lenny and WG,
This draft is considerably useful, and written well. I support this adoption.
Best regards,
Haojie Wang
China Mobile
[e-mail]
From: Leonard Giuliano
Date: 2022-03-11 20:07
To: MBONED WG
Subject: [MBONED] MBONED WG adoption call for draft-szcl-mboned-redundant-ingress-failover
We would like to initiate an official call for adoption of the "Multicast
Redundant Ingress Router Failover" draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-szcl-mboned-redundant-ingress-failover/
Please respond on list by Mar 25 if you do/do not support adoption of this
draft in MBONED.
If you are listed as a document author, please respond to this email
whether or not you are aware of any relevant IPR. If you are not listed as
an author and are aware of any relevant IPR, please respond as well.
-Lenny
_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
--
Gyan Mishra
Network Solutions Architect
Email [e-mail]
M 301 502-1347
--

Gyan Mishra
Network Solutions Architect
Email [e-mail]
M 301 502-1347