IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pim] New Version Notification for, draft-yong-rtgwg-igp-multicast-arch-00.txt

"Heidi Ou (hou)" <hou@cisco.com> Sat, 28 February 2015 00:17 UTC

Return-Path: <hou@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A96C71A1A6C for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:17:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 ZWJhgz5hhGXP for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:17:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34F971A1A69 for <pim@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:17:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1938; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1425082661; x=1426292261; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=1wSLqOitizVNW+lxEsj6cTP64dQPVw/j1KqZA7Ha5LE=; b=iXvUOzEhjFisFtqUibOmiYGaAjtnEVE3ab1/hXlCr++9Wg1HspSSup8j 16ZFiUX08stIwPDfCOUWJGSFRPvcSrwkug2E+CnQBMGLwzj/vZmzCTdGG TKeNLIc4ySR32g+JvbcV25SM7JzuR9OqSMMuCGtFnncr/Je9g/e2nZylS Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DXBgCqCPFU/4sNJK1bgwJSWgSDBr8PCoVwAhyBCE0BAQEBAQF8hBABAQQBAQELFRExCQkUAQYCGAICJgIEJQsVEAIEARKILw2gGZxsmWoBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEWBIEhiXGEUyKCaIFDAQSPdolFgRqFcIxKI4IygTxvgUR/AQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,663,1418083200"; d="scan'208";a="127712760"
Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Feb 2015 00:17:40 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com [173.37.183.79]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t1S0HeTO002196 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sat, 28 Feb 2015 00:17:40 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.6.40]) by xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com ([173.37.183.79]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 18:17:40 -0600
From: "Heidi Ou (hou)" <hou@cisco.com>
To: "pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org>, "pim-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <pim-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [pim] New Version Notification for, draft-yong-rtgwg-igp-multicast-arch-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHQUsJAI8xMA7S7rkW42xOnGddBnp0FEN8A
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 00:17:40 +0000
Message-ID: <D1162027.DBE79%hou@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <54F0C313.1020901@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616
x-originating-ip: [10.154.208.186]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <CA10637DAA27ED469DBB5EC9FE4DC8F6@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/Bk6IXLpShFJlTLNbqPVMBGp4aHE>
Subject: Re: [pim] New Version Notification for, draft-yong-rtgwg-igp-multicast-arch-00.txt
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 00:17:42 -0000

Hello, Lucy


I have read through this draft as well as
draft-yong-isis-ext-4-distribution-tree-03. The idea of using one protocol
to compute paths for both unicast and multicast traffic is well taken.
However, PIM has been deployed for a long time, and it has some unique
features widely used by existing customers, I am not confident that the
new approach adequately addresses all the key functionality of PIM.

I have quite a few questions but I would like to start with the following
two:

My first concern is that the draft seems to focus on group based flows. I
would expect the draft describe a lot more detail how to handle SSM and
optimize path for (S,G) based flows. I would think you would need one or
two TLV that are related to source specific information but I don't see it
in draft-yong-isis-ext-4-distribution-tree-03.

My second concern is how to load balance, with today's PIM deployment,
load balancing on G, or (S,G), or even next hop, is accomplished via local
policy and handles transient situation well". I am not seeing the same
flexibility with the draft.


Thanks
- Heidi





>On 02/26/2015 11:30 ب.ظ, pim-request@ietf.org wrote:
>> Re: New Version Notification for
>>        draft-yong-rtgwg-igp-multicast-arch-00.txt
>
>_______________________________________________
>pim mailing list
>pim@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email