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

[Stig Venaas <[e-mail]>]

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.

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.

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