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

Sridhar Santhanam <sridhar.santhanam@gmail.com> Tue, 29 June 2021 20:18 UTC

Return-Path: <sridhar.santhanam@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 861BC3A0744 for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 13:18:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, 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 W5tZXXZ7IKFP for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 13:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf34.google.com (mail-qv1-xf34.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f34]) (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 E166B3A0691 for <pim@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 13:18:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf34.google.com with SMTP id u8so8435649qvg.0 for <pim@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 13:18:13 -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; bh=6Ic2AJ5TVu6f4Z5wdp8p+7jvu2h2hXhHNvIwX6W6UFE=; b=qwQT5+c/WwzkLwgseKVjMjqXGTQ1Whu1GIWgLtHFN+rowH2dJmvqs8C1+5U5NmvYM4 j4mPpFObbVOTuh/7ULeVK9FEWIwMy+/HARpe0yHJnpskm86vIwtv+OJknS3pfIoNgZAC TdTfSMLlvvLcfRHVbDnqnIz2iflXFWXnE9ZWZ6GvfHHUciPrCNiYdRrz234X0gG7xoNT QGF4pLIogPqoC5N0wIlbvhFqkl28k88jcsw1wK9pvAhjObxTDLo4ECEIs5fnmaMkDydM LKMzgCdqeOq8pRUX6pkH2x6iS2qVVUdG+Vf5r9Cmxsvs9evZD8KFuNKp8UWPxJutPjxL h4VA==
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; bh=6Ic2AJ5TVu6f4Z5wdp8p+7jvu2h2hXhHNvIwX6W6UFE=; b=hKOZ+zEssmVjoUC0FPQ7tE35Rz1u2brhbORlJSyIIjhXdzBZhPBwAbRbe3P007AC81 5IUbn0+H/AcdqpSp1JcoZNcikbFxdYsOquFrSspIS2hoHvePufBBBnsQ1BZabtUH75pu ng4bhguR5TC8r2mp88AFdrSFbLLkpbqsnwDgxE5IkbC0sTJexbBqq98XZji+76JSLGxO 9I+Hf2lHZogDojI1ARCdlQOjptQ2thuvPK0QM2/pP4n9Dp9UjRj+65+EGaefrFcqJvAn 8bn21Wt5tBd3Eu3y4UV/lA7jenfwSgxrLT6dMf4joUIDg3klIVsLqhz659g7XzDTNXQr fTdA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532x5ZIlijtg3cv0G0BUJ9pvFFPoYSasJ4bgyteSXEtp8v1L2dAk K7bWiOeOSH0wcdO5ePsedMtWkcraMvsrDZQvdNZha9HIMdg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy3tktqq7sb1lKa+XMrpgQbxQVhsS8An5Hyr3ZV5Kc7LIBiVwzQ+WlDD+c6QCNm+mRXk33tcD5AFfiCP7zoMOs=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:15d0:: with SMTP id p16mr11471617qvz.21.1624997891939; Tue, 29 Jun 2021 13:18:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <mailman.85.1624993217.23022.pim@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.85.1624993217.23022.pim@ietf.org>
From: Sridhar Santhanam <sridhar.santhanam@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 13:18:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJU_F7AzWh0Bv9C2y1QX2ydbBvPef+Zfm9h1yAVLVLvv4fu=4w@mail.gmail.com>
To: pim@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001c1fcb05c5ed4e80"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/B7XXJxRF0PVT_0mBJhGKLFlEzvM>
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 20:18:20 -0000

I support the adoption.

Regards,
Sridhar

On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 12:01 PM <pim-request@ietf.org> wrote:

> Send pim mailing list submissions to
>         pim@ietf.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         pim-request@ietf.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         pim-owner@ietf.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of pim digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re:  mankamana-pim-bdr adoption call. Was: RE: Sticky PIM DR,
>       should it be added to PIM DR improvements or different draft
>       (gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 23:32:39 +0800 (CST)
> From: <gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com>
> To: <pim@ietf.org>rg>, <pim-chairs@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [pim]  mankamana-pim-bdr adoption call. Was: RE: Sticky
>         PIM DR, should it be added to PIM DR improvements or different
> draft
> Message-ID: <202106292332391181893@zte.com.cn>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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.
> - 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.
> - 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?
>
> Regards,
> Greg Mirsky
> Sr. Standardization Expert
> ?????/?????/???????  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
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of pim Digest, Vol 206, Issue 6
> ***********************************
>