Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-zzhang-mpls-rmr-multicast

Tarek Saad <> Mon, 13 May 2019 14:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE68A120120; Mon, 13 May 2019 07:41:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.989
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.989 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A-6gEB0EiSx8; Mon, 13 May 2019 07:41:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0DBB120119; Mon, 13 May 2019 07:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id p2so10221952iol.2; Mon, 13 May 2019 07:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index:date:message-id :references:in-reply-to:accept-language:content-language :mime-version; bh=Ngp1jTKqwFqacA9JDrunoa0D5m9583lfmnkzL1QycA0=; b=LP/UJo7xEJzI95Nu1UHxu48rF2M24Uv/xMEnPSWWBSX/6PASaV2chddGjntuRY4FL1 E0OLPjhrSixYt5gfUPnthCl2hMQml/Oy4MBSllbutnzqxwAcXXZ4RZd5oAzjJp5L8LRz Fy5NN6KNEv3VBG0XDqZgl3bDmsYrQljQBgF2iyn/gmjeAnVns8+QGjzoH76UF3kOHZS5 k12Rc36fKpzE/q2bcta5CMY+Vj93ttfmks9x8fh/wyXlaNU9wekFeftSGJAVHprl79i0 4CKZ0uFpUHOYHSiif4rMo2qTgdIjufvrD8tGsFVUJJeaX6Z78FSpsMwnKoaPB1m8X/Nn T2VA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:thread-topic:thread-index :date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:accept-language :content-language:mime-version; bh=Ngp1jTKqwFqacA9JDrunoa0D5m9583lfmnkzL1QycA0=; b=TF5Xfn0rejDAyx0JzGgmI/pd3szY/PvsijzzVUgJGD5p9HpJUYSPGug9Fx2lEWCbeF ywIDAb6oF6T5Ry68tJIo/FmUzf0vYQqYjlijtaNl740FGHyAn6OpfvZgWw125VzXyk3O Rp0AKfBBZnXY2R94tmOehsxBrn88ym7/cME4zffKAezQUlwMB2uA60QnKfxT01b7W791 Rt/2L6Iv37n/44mVNcRH1DWgvY0MWE5REAbH15e3TXRkW4FX3x8a2mUxJh0sAp92OXK3 XOgrZ4jbZ0bNDTEZ07usHdcHp9YG4hsPScYnMYvZF4ECGXGSgWpnLyi2KZvW4zZZyNpU JiHQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWCq/kH/N5kZXP/2A4juM2kjiBW6yJlkyNwFBepnKyR+GPGq2sf BZ1nwrRryFt9iUEp09KS0qE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyDDsbqONqw1R8SNQXZVtXxnoHcYdeS1YnS2pz+1cTYWOPZH/XBg/2EMjx1bRCGCB8InoZVyg==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:21d7:: with SMTP id c23mr17796695ioc.66.1557758511737; Mon, 13 May 2019 07:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTPSA id m142sm6275399itb.31.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 13 May 2019 07:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tarek Saad <>
To: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <>, "" <>, "" <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: MPLS-RT review of draft-zzhang-mpls-rmr-multicast
X-MS-Exchange-MessageSentRepresentingType: 1
Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 14:41:49 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-SCL: -1
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-RecordReviewCfmType: 0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BN8PR06MB62893AD1EBA7B87C8E68D575FC0F0BN8PR06MB6289namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-zzhang-mpls-rmr-multicast
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 14:41:57 -0000

Thanks Jeffrey for making the changes which address my previous comments.


From: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <>
Date: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 2:51 PM
To: "" <>, "" <>, Tarek Saad <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
Subject: RE: MPLS-RT review of draft-zzhang-mpls-rmr-multicast

Hi Huub, Tarek,

Based on your comments, I removed the text about RSVP-TE P2MP tunnel optimization and simply refer to the other document. Hope this will address your concerns.


Juniper Internal
From: Huub van Helvoort <>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 6:51 AM
To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <>;
Subject: Re: MPLS-RT review of draft-zzhang-mpls-rmr-multicast

Hello Jeffrey,

Please see [hvh-2] below.


Please see zzh2> below.

Juniper Internal
From: Huub van Helvoort <><>
Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 4:08 PM
To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <><>;<>
Subject: Re: MPLS-RT review of draft-zzhang-mpls-rmr-multicast

Hello Jeffrey,

Please see my response in-line [hvh].

Hi Huub,

Thank you for your review and comments. Please see zzh> below.

From: Huub van Helvoort <><>
Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 5:58 AM
Subject: MPLS-RT review of draft-zzhang-mpls-rmr-multicast


I’ve been selected as an MPLS-RT reviewer for draft-zzhang-mpls-rmr-multicast,
which is currently a candidate for MPLS WG adoption.

In the abstract is stated:

   With Resilient MPLS Rings (RMR), although all existing multicast

   procedures and solutions can work as is, there are optimizations that

   could be done for RSVP-TE P2MP tunnel signaling and Fast-ReRouting

   for both mLDP and RSVP-TE P2MP tunnels.
I have carefully read the draft but I could not find any justification
for the optimisation that could be done.

Zzh> By “justification", do you mean “need”? I thought the following text provides that:

   For a conventionally signaled RSVP-TE P2MP tunnel, an ingress LSR
   discovers leaves and signals one sub-LSP for each leaf.  Even though
   the forwarding state is merged at each hop (i.e, one incoming label
   mapping to multiple outgoing entries), the control plane maintains
   individual sub-LSP state.  This leads to lots of redundant state on
   routers close to the ingress.
[hvh] "lots of state" - can you be more specific? is the redundancy 10% or 90% ?
Zzh2> Depending on how many leaves you have. With traditional RSVP-TE P2MP, there is one sub-LSP to each leaf. If you have 20 leaves, the saving is 95% (I mean you only need to maintain 5% of state compared to traditional way). If you have 10 leaves, the saving is 90%. I don’t think the draft needs to quantify it.
[hvh-2] the draft should mention it because it may be a reason to apply the
optimization or not.

[hvh-2] if a leave is deleted, added, or changed all leaves will be notified and will
have to process the notification.

Zzh> Or do you mean “why” the optimization COULD be done? The key is that this is a ring, and:

   … As the PATH message passes along the ring, the leaves
   send RESV messages, but only one RESV message reaches the tunnel
[hvh] can you explain why only one RESV message reaches the tunnel ingress?
Zzh2> Because only one PATH message is sent, and the RESV state gets merged accordingly along the way.
[hvh-2] the merging requires processing resources.

 Zzh> If you mean “how” it is done, I thought the following describes it:

   … With RMR, this can be optimized such
   that only a single LSP is signaled, with all the leaves listed in the
   PATH message.  As the PATH message passes along the ring, the leaves
   send RESV messages, but only one RESV message reaches the tunnel

   The ingress LSR may also send PATH messages in both directions, so
   that the tunnel is set up in such a way that minimum delay is
   incurred for traffic to reach all leaves.  Alternatively, the ingress
   may send PATH message only in one direction for best bandwidth
   utilization.  For example, a leaf D is three hops away from the
   ingress A in clockwise direction (A,B,C,D) and four hops away in the
   other direction (A,E,F,G,D), but G is also a leaf so it may be better
   to just send the PATH message in the anticlockwise direction.

   Each router establishes forwarding state accordingly.  Transit
   routers switches traffic towards downstream.  A transit router could
   also be a leaf router and in that case it does "drop and continue" -
   sends traffic off the ring and switches traffic downstream.

2.1.  Tunnel Protection and FRR

   Each node on a ring signals two counter-rotating MP2P RSVP-TE LSPs to
   itself.  As these LSPs are self-signaled after the discovery of the
   ring, they can be used to protect P2MP LSPs on ring.  So neither mLDP
   nor RSVP-TE has to setup a separate P2P bypass LSPs for link and node
[hvh]  This is clear.

I also did not find any indication how this optimisation has to be
deployed. Do all the nodes in the ring, or in the network have to
support this optimisation before it becomes effective.

Zzh> The context is RMR – Resilient MPLS Ring. All routers on the ring need to support RMR and the multicast optimization for this to be effective. I can make that clear.
[hvh] OK. Thanks.

 I think these issues have to be documented before this draft can
be adopted as WG draft.

Zzh> Besides explicitly stating that all routers on the ring need to support the RSVP-TE P2MP optimization for it to be effective, please advise further how the first issue can be better documented.
[hvh] when you use the word "optimize" I expect an indication of
the effect of the optimization on performance, or used resources.

Zzh2> I see. The optimization is on (simpler) procedures and (less) resources. I don’t think we need to quantify it.

[hvh-2] I would like to know why I should deploy this "optimisation",
and maybe others would like to know too.
Zzh2> I will update the draft to point out that all routers on the ring needs to support the optimization – please let me know if that is enough.
Zzh2> Thanks!
Zzh2> Jeffrey

Best regards, Huub.



Always remember that you are unique...just like everyone else...