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 <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Tue, 29 June 2021 21:55 UTC

Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@gmail.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 D266F3A0D48; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 14:55:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 devmNnrTzo4r; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 14:55:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x533.google.com (mail-pg1-x533.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::533]) (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 E3EF03A0D43; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 14:55:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x533.google.com with SMTP id a2so51834pgi.6; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 14:55:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; 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; d=1e100.net; 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: <CA+RyBmVgqYJk0CLYwVph74vveZ0V5XCdvh9XxT6jsjrw3O7D2g@mail.gmail.com> <202106292332391181893@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <202106292332391181893@zte.com.cn>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 17:55:01 -0400
Message-ID: <CABNhwV1-0eHvBmApO19RfWBpdHkQniF=0B+TLd33X20Y3ZGvSA@mail.gmail.com>
To: gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com
Cc: pim@ietf.org, pim-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000071fb905c5eea9ae"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/9jdZYJhEmwtv5jA9JTMPENyRUJk>
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-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: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 21:55:20 -0000

Hi Greg

Many thanks for your comments.

Thank you

Gyan

On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 11:33 AM <gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com> 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: gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com
> www.zte.com.cn
> ------------------Original Mail------------------
> From: Michael McBride <michael.mcbride@futurewei.com>
> 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: pim@ietf.org <pim@ietf.org>
>
>
> 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 <pim-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Michael McBride
> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 6:11 PM
> To: pim@ietf.org
> 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:
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-mankamana-pim-bdr%2F&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cmmcbride%40futurewei.com%7C067e47a1b80941d12e0408d9351aa874%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637599210899942214%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=%2BdhjjMXC5bHiaYai9if7HSE0N%2BRlwdEFubLfz%2FlKODo%3D&amp;reserved=0
> 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 <pim-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)
> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2021 11:29 AM
> To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>om>; zhang.zheng <
> zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>gt;; Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
> Cc: Sridhar Santhanam (sridsant) <sridsant@cisco.com>om>; pim@ietf.org
> 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" <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> 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@ietf.org
>
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpim&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cmmcbride%40futurewei.com%7C067e47a1b80941d12e0408d9351aa874%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637599210899942214%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=XRbjNZlVlm3isR%2F7NYbb7kOrAvy8Cv8%2BkpG7sDrE38I%3D&amp;reserved=0
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim@ietf.org
>
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpim&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cmmcbride%40futurewei.com%7C067e47a1b80941d12e0408d9351aa874%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637599210899942214%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=XRbjNZlVlm3isR%2F7NYbb7kOrAvy8Cv8%2BkpG7sDrE38I%3D&amp;reserved=0
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
>
-- 

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*



*M 301 502-1347*