Re: [pim] mankamana-pim-bdr adoption call. Was: RE: Sticky PIM DR, should it be added to PIM DR improvements or different draft

Gyan Mishra <> Tue, 29 June 2021 21:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D266F3A0D48; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 14:55:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 devmNnrTzo4r; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 14:55:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::533]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3EF03A0D43; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 14:55:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id a2so51834pgi.6; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 14:55:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xodijGMxesrfrPADP6d05wcwM2F+PhIjkBHepzq/tL8=; b=JrNhLf0Cs1TF/L6NObQmtu+AyysOiIhsvDx//7pKYM+Jlyn2icMd7e8P5+n6HkZ94A djUFDGnk55zwo4v41SY6jZv4Lue8qDzH/Va75Yl5n2pq3p09ze1Kjh7K/727cIv8CUdZ 0swEnJtRWb3wzNdDZZ0gBVJ2wVyaJdTTOobvtRQZ4vXo0C/ZxmYxb4QS2F3Q1/wOwaRO cSw0hSTg+9gXPjIr1qk0mffGgzpm2hoKy2y9WNWzGNlSVNlMPtQoIm1GChvGWpy5vEav vm8B83BsEAq/YPdx3izJXJZD/294QH4PFSyxKoce/OFJ0MSJGL6/LbVln77nisd7WHR7 TtHg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xodijGMxesrfrPADP6d05wcwM2F+PhIjkBHepzq/tL8=; b=VKvqkSluHXnLAC/bmVoB18fz07mCdRiYX3B/7jBdAEyLPZEeQJ7nA1XzKIq9e0U9tv hhSjOtxrSWB0Nrn7xeCc9cwAMIKLPtstLrhT8yDSobWhcwySgqbeE1Or4QiMGbJBf+8B zS4mh2Vb3tXbxvTTS9sQqmXKFtcujVMKpGT1E2VcbWaUL1Zb1pAwx/N3xBvuUSJfkKPf fLukq8BHCKK8rv4dQxLiJd2Q8gk/6IE67KN+e/BySX52Jfl23VFgAwdzb9BrtB9Bw9hX CTUSumStNA/tTn41hm6cd9JhBdTg78cD0H2GvRfEjrNAdbifRczv8RFs0HkHoMpVXzaZ jleQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530+dZYu/m1lIyhQc6HDqD7pTPr4b95r6rg1WHWhmyRBKxqpX7G8 Na2dGC0EIlwFU4dNeoFQYNlCTjlZ++/K8Qoq3TmT/IKY18k=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwXjOJ/q/OmAyg14FC+036cBCh0EN1nRJ1gCJ4v4/fA4dFtL49EBSksvWkoyjG9DzbjDnyUeraHh4tlAvGpulk=
X-Received: by 2002:a63:db43:: with SMTP id x3mr30400566pgi.383.1625003712257; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 14:55:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Gyan Mishra <>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 17:55:01 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000071fb905c5eea9ae"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [pim] mankamana-pim-bdr adoption call. Was: RE: Sticky PIM DR, should it be added to PIM DR improvements or different draft
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, 29 Jun 2021 21:55:20 -0000

Hi Greg

Many thanks for your comments.

Thank you


On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 11:33 AM <> wrote:

> Dear All,
> I've read the draft and support its adoption by the PIM WG.
> I have several non-blocking comments and a question:
> - it seems that some additional references to RFC 7761 can be placed in
> the Abstract and Introduction section.

   Gyan> Ack.  We will add.

> - the introduction of a BDR PIM-SM router improves the convergence and
> reduces the impact of the DR failure on the multicast service. However, the
> detection, except for the DR transmitting PIM Hello with Holdtime = 0
> before going down, is in tens of seconds. Hence, it might be helpful to
> reference draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case and describe the interworking
> aspects, if any.

   Gyan> The goal is trying to make it make before break to not disrupt the
multicast traffic so giving it 2 hello delay period before traffic switches
over to the alternate path.  We can still mention pim p2mp draft for
 faster convergence so the MBB happens quicker.

> - Section 4.4.1 (and 4.4.2 through the reference to 4.4.1) propose that a
> new PIM-SM router initially advertises its priority as 0. Hence my
> question, would it be beneficial if that new router switches to the
> configured value if the failure of DR or BDR is detected?

    Gyan> I agree for failure.  The priority 0 is for delay of preemptive
switchover to wait for MBB tree is built before switching traffic over.

Many Thanks,

> Regards,
> Greg Mirsky
> Sr. Standardization Expert
> 预研标准部/有线研究院/有线产品经营部  Standard Preresearch Dept./Wireline Product R&D
> Institute/Wireline Product Operation Division
> E:
> ------------------Original Mail------------------
> From: Michael McBride <>
> Date: Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 3:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [pim] mankamana-pim-bdr adoption call. Was: RE: Sticky PIM
> DR, should it be added to PIM DR improvements or different draft
> To: <>
> Hello again,
> It's been a week with no response to this adoption call. We will give it
> another week and if still no response we won't adopt at this time.
> thanks,
> mike
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pim <> On Behalf Of Michael McBride
> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 6:11 PM
> To:
> Subject: [pim] mankamana-pim-bdr adoption call. Was: RE: Sticky PIM DR,
> should it be added to PIM DR improvements or different draft
> Hello all,
> We are picking back up on this thread and using it as a call for adoption.
> During IETF 110 we had 9 in favor and 2 against adoption. Please read the
> draft:
> and indicate if you support adoption.
> If you don't support adoption please indicate whether you would support
> merging with draft-ietf-pim-dr-improvement or have other suggestions. The
> minutes are included below to show the options with progressing this draft.
> thanks,
> mike
> draft-mankamana-pim-bdr - Mankamana
> Lenny - this concept of priority and preemption is not unique to pim:
> vrrp, rsvp with backup paths, etc. can we leverage from those? Was it
> protocol level stuff or vendor implementations, those could be good
> examples. leave it up to implementations?
> Alvaro - what has me confused is talking about two solutions that are
> basically the same thing. A good argument has been made on how the previous
> draft isn't needed. It would be nice if all the solutions was considered in
> one draft. We seem to be circuling around implementations, first resolve if
> we want single or multiple solutions. And then understand how they interact.
> Stig - I agree. We initially only had one sticky DR in other draft, now we
> have two proposals. Do we actually need two solutions? Are there different
> use cases where one is better then the other?
> Alvaro - I'm not advocating for one or two, the wg to decide. maybe we
> define multiple use cases. Needs more coordination.
> Stig - if the wg decides we only need one solution that covers all the use
> cases we probably only want to publish one of them.
> Mike - some may want to have a hello option and others may not. And right
> now we only have one wg document. Let's say we do adopt this draft, should
> we hold off on progressing both documents until they are both progressed
> together?
> Alvaro - That would be nice. they are not dependent on each other. they
> don't have to progress together. progressing close would be nice.
> Stig - we shouldn't progress any document until we carefully decide what
> solution is best or if we want both solutions. Lets compare both options.
> Mike - let's poll for adoption.
> Stig - just because we adopt both documents doesn't mean we publish both
> documents.
> Poll - 9 in favor and 2 against. Will take to the list.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pim <> On Behalf Of Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)
> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2021 11:29 AM
> To: Alvaro Retana <>om>; zhang.zheng <
>>gt;; Stig Venaas <>
> Cc: Sridhar Santhanam (sridsant) <>om>;
> Subject: Re: [pim] Sticky PIM DR, should it be added to PIM DR
> improvements or different draft
> Thanks every one for input. So I would update Sticky PIM DR without
> capability option in draft-mankamana-pim-bdr. Will ask for adoption in
> coming IETF.
> Mankamana
> On 12/4/20, 9:04 AM, "Alvaro Retana" <> wrote:
> On December 4, 2020 at 11:03:22 AM, Stig Venaas wrote:
> Stig:
> Hi!
> > Thoughts? Do you see this differently?
> I'm ok with whatever the WG decides, as long as the relationship and
> interaction between multiple potential solutions is clear.
> This is what I wrote in my review of draft-ietf-pim-dr-improvement-09:
> ===
> (2) As far as I can see draft-mankamana-pim-bdr has not been adopted yet.
> Assuming that is the plan, how would the two mechanisms interact?  Given
> that draft-mankamana-pim-bdr doesn't add options, and §5 says that if no
> options are received then the routers MUST use rfc7761, how does a router
> implementing this specification tell the difference?
> I realize that some of these questions may be better directed at
> draft-mankamana-pim-bdr, but because the WG agreed that a statement
> relating the two should be included in this document [1], then I'm
> asking now.  I would really like to understand what the WG expects.
> ===
> The WG is already aware of both drafts.  Assuming
> draft-mankamana-pim-bdr is adopted, I would prefer it if both
> solutions are progressed together (one or two documents is ok with
> me).
> Thanks!
> Alvaro.
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list


*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email <>*

*M 301 502-1347*