Re: [pim] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pim-drlb-11.txt

Gyan Mishra <> Tue, 15 October 2019 14:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8718C120119; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 07:07:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 7NjW5tx-k0ZZ; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 07:07:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::834]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FDD6120043; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 07:07:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id r5so30782968qtd.0; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 07:07:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:mime-version:subject:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=6WYB0jEh7N+P1HmdTjCgBTOVLK7hLNG6A5xQTssCQUw=; b=X1dQajVJ+Y6CCfbSxwoIudUw8FS0wStIo7Qj5dqRhGHLnGMq0ct5Y+8f8c2XCcyiZW CMMwJo4CbZrspWbX1ya3OZ+Jr/uTba8ocatkCEb7J5cJ1RYAnxerS3XdFSMtp0LoUYsw t7Rgy3U36+kGYnj6MVoHvKEcV27Udjb8EOkwDif/hDplrqQ0DENHaqeNgQ1Y66Xo0kxB hAT2OrU90bp68RFc+qMjGe4FCXgHfIKImkztXf5DiBlEHLVgvr5ZJrJhINM6va4AXETJ NDMnY8+zXjw45qvvCmMaUJbYqebsI1uAjWko52bSiaVN2F4tjRf+fj83KvWN4ABm5zi2 DETg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:subject:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=6WYB0jEh7N+P1HmdTjCgBTOVLK7hLNG6A5xQTssCQUw=; b=r1IuWPaczEK5Atd27TeIZD9kd9Gv/O8am+krfqtYvQ9BKAynmdj5c49v9oTuvNsZFa wS3SZXRJ+bdB9K73aMIBNUSRwOvGWpzZnz53P9URnOyK8lGLbyMzIKbZt3x75HTY7SAm uodqtZ/u0TD0vWmo7B81MBjqRxI42e2qaiwTjlXQvd5GXZSy4Ec2KXEs2n23oySBuQGw XPSXWB1/yZErjU6XUxGejgxXQWfFyrN9uBc36RrVcW2FQTBwfk2prtfS0XANmmhvQ5oV zK/7+k74o6R0ldd1uGgYad8OrdxJCjKmZ7h8aOLmYoOKF7tk/jSJQjE8NI3aDg4ulIeW /YgA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXLZXto+hzicUDHaoffsKRoFyWcTecqF2N9EPVL+iFYR2VEMaVN AW4PSyvnV8UtAkWsDljUMxM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzIKHN4ZGKVYX0SyNmu96VtMTkQcRgsbPBb5Yt/nzljKfvaN6baAftJZukDNufYx8jQPigy+Q==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:3226:: with SMTP id x35mr38214456qta.156.1571148422739; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 07:07:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id q8sm11098804qtj.76.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 15 Oct 2019 07:07:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gyan Mishra <>
X-Google-Original-From: Gyan Mishra <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16G102)
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 10:07:01 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [pim] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pim-drlb-11.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 14:07:07 -0000

Hi Mankamana

In the DR improvements draft this is what I was looking for a LB capabilities for all multicast ASM or SSM environments where both DR and BDR are now deemed GDR capable in hello exchange and both DRs would perform the modulo hash for RP for ASM and for both ASM and SSM SPT bit set built SPT tree for S,G based on hash output.  I did notice that if the number of DRs is odd number like 3 5 7 then the LB is not even which exists for all hashing type algorithms have that issue but as long as even number 2 4 6 then the LB algorithm can get close to 50/50.

With the modifications with PIM assert to pick the FHR in dual homes source scenario now with load sharing would that now not occur but would you end up with a permanent double stream on the network.

I do see this GDR capability fully supports IPv6.

With PIM spec the higher IP or priority is the PIM DR and lower IP is IGMP querier.  

Is their any enhancement improvements with load balancing for the L2 IPv4 IGMP snooping or IPv6 MLD snooping or L3 IPv4 IGMP querier and IPv6 MLDv2 querier.

Does the PIM GDR capability extend to receiver and source side PIM c-signaling for MVPN profiles for PMSI inclusive,  inclusive aggregate or selective trees.  


Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 11, 2019, at 5:27 PM, wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Protocols for IP Multicast WG of the IETF.
>        Title           : PIM Designated Router Load Balancing
>        Authors         : Yiqun Cai
>                          Heidi Ou
>                          Sri Vallepalli
>                          Mankamana Mishra
>                          Stig Venaas
>                          Andy Green
>    Filename        : draft-ietf-pim-drlb-11.txt
>    Pages           : 20
>    Date            : 2019-10-11
> Abstract:
>   On a multi-access network, one of the PIM-SM routers is elected as a
>   Designated Router.  One of the responsibilities of the Designated
>   Router is to track local multicast listeners and forward data to
>   these listeners if the group is operating in PIM-SM.  This document
>   specifies a modification to the PIM-SM protocol that allows more than
>   one of the PIM-SM routers to take on this responsibility so that the
>   forwarding load can be distributed among multiple routers.
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list