Re: [pim] WG Adoption Call: draft-pim-with-ipv4-prefix-over-ipv6-nh

I support the adoption.

> 2017/08/23 3:02, Michael McBride <Michael.McBride@huawei.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello PIMers,
>  
> This begins a call for adoption of draft-pim-with-ipv4-prefix-over-ipv6-nh-01 which was presented in Prague where 4 were for adoption and 0 against. Please respond with your thoughts, either way, on whether we should adopt this draft. The draft notes, from the discussion in Prague, are below.
>  
> Thanks,
> Mike
>  
> Prague meeting notes:
>  
> Stig: pim-with-ipv4-prefix-over-ipv6-nh.
> Ashutosh gupta is the main author.
> Problem statement:
> mcast routing needs a RPF tree to be formed in order to receive one copy of mcast data on lowest cost loop free path
> in case of PIMv4, it needs a valid PIMv4 neighbor to send PIMv4 join
> when using RFC5549, a IPv4 prefix is reachable over IPv6 next hop or vice versa
> if rpf interface has more than 1 pimv4 neighbor, then a new pim mechanism is needed to choose corresponding neighbor for IPv6 next hop.
> solution: use of secondary address list option in PIM hello
> status:
> deployed by one cisco customer.
> looking for wg adoption
> Toerless: is the join for the v4 still an v4 packet?
> Stig: yes
> Toerless: there is no interest to have a single address family pim adjacency.
> Stig: there could be. there is v4 and v6 on the router interfaces.
> Toerless: the address extension is in v4 or v6?
> stig: there is a hello where the family should be same as interface itself.
> Toerless: minimum recommendation is that v4 mapping is the hello option in v6 hello. one other logical next step is what is preferred solution. perhaps just build a v6 port connection. and can still send v4 joins.
> Stig: you could send a pim join with v6 destination address that might contact v4 s,gs.
> toerless: say prefer doing this in v6.
> stig: there is also people trying to deploy v6 only in their core networks. and also deliver v4 payloads
> toerless: first step make the control plane v6. and make v4 a service. get rid of native v4 packets is a different problem.
> stig: would prefer to have this a separate thing. simple document. to do what you say to use v6 join to ask for v4 join that would make a change to pim spec.
> toerless: would love protocol drafts to share best practices. have hello option in v6 pim.
> stig: would like some guidance on whether wg should do this.
> 4 people have read. 4 people think we should adopt. will take to list.
> Toerless: most of my comments don't have to go in this draft. maybe in mboned.
> Stig as chair: think it would be interesting to look at this in mboned. people that deploy multicast. v4 mcast with v6 signalling. maybe talk to isps.
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim