[pim] 答复: 答复: call for adoption: draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-01

[Xuxiaohu <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stig,

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表 Stig
> Venaas
> 发送时间: 2013年6月4日 1:33
> 收件人: Xuxiaohu
> 抄送: [e-mail]; Mike McBride; [e-mail]
> 主题: Re: [pim] 答复: call for adoption: draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-01
> 
> Hi
> 
> On 6/2/2013 8:51 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----邮件原件-----
> >> 发件人: Mike McBride [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> 发送时间: 2013年5月31日 15:07
> >> 收件人: Prashant Jhingran (pjhingra)
> >> 抄送: Rajiv Asati (rajiva); Xuxiaohu; [e-mail]; Wei
> >> Zhou (weizho2); Stig Venaas; [e-mail]
> >> 主题: Re: [pim] call for adoption: draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-01
> >>
> >> Thank you for the responses.
> >>
> >> Some feel the two drafts are completely unrelated while others feel
> >> they are completely related. In either case, are you, who feel they
> >> are related, saying you oppose the adoption of draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-01?
> >> We can infer that is the case but I haven't heard explicitly stated
> >> opposition to adoption. We now have several choices for
> >> draft-zhou-pim-vrrp, let me try boiling it down to 3:
> >>
> >> 1. adopt draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-01 as is
> >> 2. adopt draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-01 only after
> >> draft-xu-pim-drpriority-auto-adjustment is referenced.
> >> 3. merge the drafts
> >
> > I prefer option 3.
> 
> I don't think we should simply do a vote here, we need to get an
> understanding of what the WG wants and see if we have a rough
> consensus. I think it would be helpful if people responding could
> state why they believe so, this may lead to some useful discussion
> and help people make up their mind.

Although draft-zhou-pim-vrrp attempts to address the transit network scenario additionally where VRRP is enabled, but IGP is disabled, there is one major overlap between these two drafts: to make the PIM last-hop/last-hop DR and the VRRP master run on the same router. 

> As for merging, we need to see if the WG is interested in the content
> of both the two drafts, and consider whether merging them makes sense.
> 
> We did have some support for adopting draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-01 in the
> last meeting, while draft-xu-pim-drpriority-auto-adjustment was
> discussed a few years ago, and people probably need to re-read it and
> see what they think now.

For people to re-read it conveniently, a revision is available now at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-pim-drpriority-auto-adjustment-04

Best regards,
Xiaohu

> Stig
> 
> > Best regards,
> > Xiaohu
> >
> >> In either case the authors should revive the expired
> >> draft-xu-pim-drpriority-auto-adjustment-03 for consideration within
> >> the wg irregardless of vrrp-01 adoption outcome.
> >>
> >> What say ye?
> >>
> >> mike
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Prashant Jhingran (pjhingra)
> >> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>> Hi Mike,
> >>>
> >>> I agree with Rajiv, both drafts are trying to solve the same issue....that too
> in
> >> almost similar way.
> >>>
> >>> -
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Prashant Jhingran
> >>> NOSTG TME - SP Wi-Fi
> >>>
> >>> http://wwwin.cisco.com/ios/tech/mobile/proxyipv6/
> >>> http://wwwin.cisco.com/ios/tech/broadband
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
> >>> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:06 AM
> >>> To: Mike McBride; Xuxiaohu; [e-mail]; Prashant
> >> Jhingran (pjhingra); Wei Zhou (weizho2)
> >>> Cc: Stig Venaas; [e-mail]
> >>> Subject: RE: [pim] call for adoption: draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-01
> >>>
> >>> Hi Mike,
> >>>
> >>> It seems that both drafts seem to solve nearly the same problem (multiple
> >> routers on the multi-access interface and existence of first-hop redundancy
> >> protocols e.g. VRRP).
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Rajiv
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Mike McBride [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:17 AM
> >>>> To: Xuxiaohu; [e-mail]; Rajiv Asati (rajiva);
> >>>> Prashant Jhingran (pjhingra); Wei Zhou (weizho2)
> >>>> Cc: Stig Venaas; Mike McBride; [e-mail]
> >>>> Subject: Re: [pim] call for adoption: draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-01
> >>>>
> >>>> Folks,
> >>>>
> >>>> We have this new draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-01 which we are about to adopt
> >>>> into the pim wg. It has been brought to the WGs attention that there
> >>>> is a older draft (draft-xu-pim-drpriority-auto-adjustment-03) which
> >>>> may have some overlap with the new one. That older draft does contain
> >>>> information about VRRP aware PIM which is attributed to Stig in the
> >>>> acknowledgements. If the five of you authors feel that there is some
> >>>> validity that the older draft contains some information being used in
> >>>> the new draft, you may want to acknowledge that in the references or
> >>>> acknowledgements. It appears the drafts are dissimilar enough to not
> >>>> be merged but I may be wrong. Please share your opinions on this so we
> >>>> can establish consensus within the group and move the document along.
> >>>>
> >>>> If the broader WG participants have an opinion on this please speak up.
> >>>>
> >>>> thanks,
> >>>> mike
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Xuxiaohu <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This draft reminds me that there has been a draft
> >>>> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-pim-drpriority-auto-adjustment-03
> >>>> ) three years before which uses almost the same technology to save
> >>>> almost the same problem.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The following is quoted from the above draft:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     "In fact, if VRRP is run on the PIM routers and the VRRP has
> enabled
> >>>>>     the upstream link tracking mechanism, the PIM DR failover
> >> mechanism
> >>>>>     could be coupled with the VRRP so as to reuse the upstream link
> >>>>>     tracking mechanism of VRRP. One option is to synchronize the PIM
> DR
> >>>>>     priority value to the VRRP priority value always. In this way, the
> >>>>>     PIM DR and the VRRP master will always run on an identical router
> if
> >>>>>     the VRRP Preempt_Mode is set to True. Another option is to make
> the
> >>>>>     PIM DR and the VRRP master run on an identical router anyway
> (i.e.,
> >>>>>     regardless whether or not the VRRP Preempt_Mode is True). To
> >> achieve
> >>>>>     this goal, the PIM DR priority of the VRRP master router SHOULD
> >>>>>     always be set to a higher fixed value than that of the VRRP slave
> >>>>>     router automatically."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>> Xiaohu
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -----邮件原件-----
> >>>>>> 发件人: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表
> >>>> Mike
> >>>>>> McBride
> >>>>>> 发送时间: 2013年5月10日 3:48
> >>>>>> 收件人: [e-mail]
> >>>>>> 主题: [pim] call for adoption: draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-01
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-01 was presented in our most recent pim meeting
> >>>>>> in Orlando. 4 people were in favor of adopting the draft. Zero against.
> >>>>>> Please read the draft (its short) and provide an opinion either way
> >>>>>> by the end of next Friday the 17th.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-01.txt
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> thanks,
> >>>>>> mike
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> pim mailing list
> >>>>>> [e-mail]
> >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim