Re: [pim] Sticky PIM DR, should it be added to PIM DR improvements or different draft

Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> Fri, 04 December 2020 02:07 UTC

Return-Path: <stig@venaas.com>
X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 431A13A120B for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 18:07:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=venaas-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TALGe7jUqkCQ for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 18:07:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52a.google.com (mail-pg1-x52a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 820393A0E5F for <pim@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 18:07:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52a.google.com with SMTP id o5so2571677pgm.10 for <pim@ietf.org>; Thu, 03 Dec 2020 18:07:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=venaas-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=BASDkyEeimj0a77iH3jD2Xls3vQtKBFUHdur844aUHs=; b=ilHAGn0eM69qiQZnBZ6L+LckJrNqldn/h1bP37mNsnEnQYDxzq7i/ilXp369lI4Ys3 B2IO1IOfkWbDlUd781JFLvF5dLrMQV7ZpsusyCqdTcOUQgn6c6oVpbkynhRyTGojzxnu T9zyOziAiIbaHTUKg3Sd0OQ0wLjr0UmW5jw9XwRGzZzV0nVklFoJ/pFpoEDWIoa222Lk Bokvatq+nZH8rHtc4TVR4WgzpFfLoJaACDkGLjOAns++wRuqSCHfbAlBsyVfhtkXOfz1 D4t9atkNjHphWArReGP7XLG7bTxx4d1eaJNpKXnhtG/c4Ig4PPfkgF8mQSfz2zxQ72+m gRIg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=BASDkyEeimj0a77iH3jD2Xls3vQtKBFUHdur844aUHs=; b=qq4tjAbMQuq4NflANlu3p8N5fRtlb4KVXPiHUfftvXJv+yHorEEPpSFkIT77KER9et 2KOZWMWl9gjBOJ3wQ1Wv9+2YAfEiMt2NRvYlhOQTX3eOUo79zUKusQlZwPYDH0vTiHmy CoBz8sI3RKDg326GVBu+6AsgcIj27RSWQYEms2xhJgDhTlJmClb+Z891wl9+4wCyDO1/ sykqIV1cGwZhWW3N2m78nJc6qbbyPxfYszJbA2hmKfDBz9hghMNgFfiOAAXEVEtVbgK6 4QF+SPjaUcK9+jT7EJ1Mi2c4WaO747ATmaKiw/tI5ouLw1ZOyJKXdNRJ7ZyYLz5iebum QnZg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530vqwyWd+XCg5YgGBzPn5ULRd2fVsdQQcO1Ig5tTdfisRY7fNy4 5M1P093BO5Ovnsk+3UqRYFmBc0Biq8208sikw7wHAnbcMRb7KQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzwgkvWeqQYIr8k6oNy4R0LZj7GVX4Sw/KxKieyPMv3qMTAko+7unEwYXS1L+cU/LoTI8tpA0BBvaggw0H4A7k=
X-Received: by 2002:a62:2ec4:0:b029:18e:f566:d459 with SMTP id u187-20020a622ec40000b029018ef566d459mr1655138pfu.80.1607047640785; Thu, 03 Dec 2020 18:07:20 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <ECA54067-A11D-4A88-A9F8-6F41DBC29552@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <ECA54067-A11D-4A88-A9F8-6F41DBC29552@cisco.com>
From: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 18:07:10 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHANBt+0gd2BsTFxUw8DGSnh+dEXJXeRFLKyUg=KaefHQ35mSw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)" <mankamis=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: "pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/6Mu5mCf1CO6d3PuyREOvo4Tbno4>
Subject: Re: [pim] Sticky PIM DR, should it be added to PIM DR improvements or different draft
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <pim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pim/>
List-Post: <mailto:pim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2020 02:07:23 -0000

Hi

If I understand the dr-improvement draft correctly, it supports sticky
DR as is. Isn't that the main purpose of the draft, aside from also
electing a BDR? The DR Address Option would announce the address of
the sticky DR. Why would you need to announce the priority?

Regards,
Stig

On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 9:51 AM Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)
<mankamis=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> All,
>
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pim-dr-improvement-10 draft briefly talks about PIM DR being sticky. But does not have much detail yet.  There are providers who do want to use Sticky PIM DR functionality. Since DR improvement talks about Hello options and carry elected PIM DR . There are two options.
>
>
>
> Add new Sticky PIM DR procedures to this draft
> Have new draft which talks only about sticky PIM DR without any hello option
>
>
>
>
>
> Brief about Sticky PIM DR procedures
>
> If Sticky DR is configured in PIM router , initial DR election happens it is defined in PIM RFC today.
> To make sure now elected DR does not give up it DR role, now it will start advertising PIM_DR_MAX_Priority (this number to be reserved from DR priority value )
> Now if any new router comes up, it will never try to take role of DR since at step2 elected DR was advertising highest priority.
>
>
>
>
>
> This is the brief about what would go in draft.
>
>
>
> Any input would be appreciated.
>
>
>
> Mankamana
>
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim