IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pim] Issues with pim registers

Anish Peter <anish.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 10 May 2018 13:42 UTC

Return-Path: <anish.ietf@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 31D9812EAD6 for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 May 2018 06:42:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AC_DIV_BONANZA=0.001, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-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=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 xWZ8xWL7aHGN for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 May 2018 06:42:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua0-x234.google.com (mail-ua0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::234]) (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 93B73124217 for <pim@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 May 2018 06:42:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua0-x234.google.com with SMTP id a3-v6so1325403uad.8 for <pim@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 May 2018 06:42:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=i0BRD1CiqK3YskhPg6KLNGZ+HDqx7rugIJPMaxh49kg=; b=OEoWqWzfCZ8Vqnk2uNpqMOjs7oQI5qhyxYiOzC8bdlb7UNDM0v93nE8Bi5ULAvR2U/ npYXTzSln5kM/wwNtaIPYxCVSVLhv35VuYvrXWab3FkGWeyWHoehE6lyAwtt2Q/eKbdo j7y8poyuZUyU4I52zp7omcgmaD4+T/6F5wddf4AsVEwi5syRRUSf14vBsHJgB8mpK+lS 33JBZlPT5LLFT7/hkZaCy9F+z2oXfdU8FuUuKTyURBQCwPb71Qs5rySaa6uEmF12hJL8 ihbzfisGHXfEdcpJ0rQ50h0XvesVfk4dVAsP47vfPgzD7Od23HtjnY4sVOjTiBRK2r6Y 6xsw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=i0BRD1CiqK3YskhPg6KLNGZ+HDqx7rugIJPMaxh49kg=; b=eUzsGVJuTuDHe2Pd6gdtMFiCSDyNYGp6f/NCQI8R0lswUtUyCmyuwTw+vZGt3ta92L S0u3tZXPbjIH029qopcASpXUFh1VrfQsGgnGfL0Wd87z3kCkcZTZvQUZyzY+EZovInJw zlnqbqt9g3Zj1pbm1SlACrAAY/i5QYf01a8FY4Spx4Wxi2kggLE2Y3HhJdILz+LW221x UR08R3TxNEs9fABLQs94ZfX9bQDLdGABYB0FKHCYb9dhpz4kZEQTGUKoE3wYSUW7mP42 fyp8HCPajIz7WaQihCS/wucF53PjGaldEY7kxheJ52VA7Mip/dajNLkg39OWpT16hIR/ FFoQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPweyHgBnSDz2yxOH9kXm9h9YgyMEkmDQju/l8TglkVI/adTC7eck W8SCBT9wakq7iYajUEsw/cA9lNDI3Pj9tWc1uHM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZqBqCh1xhCWS+4UDjCKWaBdICQhskulO3SJ8sbgDEpupOZ3zGF0hNw03WdHytqHe8EBzlZfolZhzTCUKqmle6E=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:6008:: with SMTP id j8-v6mr1028321ual.179.1525959734658; Thu, 10 May 2018 06:42:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.176.75.68 with HTTP; Thu, 10 May 2018 06:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5E3BA7B3-F180-45B1-9A1D-10A3C9497888@cisco.com>
References: <CAHANBt+1=PYBDL-2M+jw4pyH_GGeoEzK1bK7_TcV7CRDbBtUBA@mail.gmail.com> <5E3BA7B3-F180-45B1-9A1D-10A3C9497888@cisco.com>
From: Anish Peter <anish.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 19:12:13 +0530
Message-ID: <CAA6qS9o4aWTR4DERSKVUbbqf-uMAUs7wpUOkhh1Y9P2Vf8rBkg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Vikas Ramesh Kamath (vikkamat)" <vikkamat@cisco.com>
Cc: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>, "pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ed0a9b056bda2f90"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/A7gU3dr3AvCuvFZYJdU3NImqbrY>
Subject: Re: [pim] Issues with pim registers
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 10 May 2018 13:42:18 -0000

Hi Working Group,
 We started working on pim registers primarily because of 2 problems seen.
1. PIM register scaling problems
  1.a Frequent soft-state refreshes
  1.b Only one pim s,g state info in a pim packet.
  1.c per-sg register-state timer in FHR and RP
2. PIM register state timeout issues.
   If a pim register or a register-stop message is dropped, FHR starts
forwarding line-rate traffic en-capped as pim registers until it gets a
R-S.
3. Initial packet loss.
   PIM ASM was designed with the objective of avoiding initial packet loss.
But this requirement does not seem to have that much of demand from for
multicast applications seen presently.
4. A better scalable anycast-RP mechanism
5. MSDP for ipv6


   draft reliable-pim-registers was published keeping in mind first 4 of
these problems.

 As it stands now Pim Over Reliable Transport is seen as the answer for
multicast scaling requirements, the proposals of this draft are independent
extensions to PORT.

Regards,
Anish


On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 12:26 AM, Vikas Ramesh Kamath (vikkamat) <
vikkamat@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
>
>
> As part of draft-ramki-pim-null-register-packing, we have proposed a new
> standard for PIM NULL register and register stop messages. The motivation
> for this draft came from the issues seen in customer environments where the
> high number of PIM NULL registers were causing traffic drops.
>
>
>
> We believe this new packet format will not only solve the above mentioned
> problem but also will help in optimizing bandwidth in the network by
> minimizing the number of NULL registers/register stops exchanged in the
> network. Please let us know your thoughts/feedback on this
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Vikas
>
>
>
> On 4/20/18, 12:46 PM, "pim on behalf of Stig Venaas" <pim-bounces@ietf.org
> on behalf of stig@venaas.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>     Hi, I'm posting this as a WG chair.
>
>
>
>     In the last meeting we had presentations of two drafts proposing
>
>     alternatives or changes to the existing pim register mechanism, but we
>
>     didn't have time to discuss them. The drafts were:
>
>
>
>     draft-ramki-pim-null-register-packing
>
>     draft-anish-reliable-pim-registers
>
>
>
>     It would be great if people can provide comments on the drafts. I also
>
>     think it could be a good start if we could have a discussion about
>
>     what problems people are seeing today. What issues motivated the
>
>     authors to propose these drafts, and what issues are other people
>
>     seeing with the current pim register mechanism.
>
>
>
>     I believe these mechanisms may also apply to pim anycast-RP, so issues
>
>     with that could also be interesting to consider.
>
>
>
>     I'm hoping this email can start some discussion. While I'm suggesting
>
>     discussing pim register issues in particular, any thoughts people have
>
>     would be more than welcome.
>
>
>
>     Thanks,
>
>     Stig
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     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
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email