IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Lucy yong <lucy.yong@huawei.com> Mon, 02 March 2015 15:35 UTC

Return-Path: <lucy.yong@huawei.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 5ED6A1A872D for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 07:35:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 gmTETkohv9YX for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 07:35:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 269F51A1AF0 for <pim@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 07:35:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BTE47274; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 15:35:33 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DFWEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.193.5.72) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 15:35:33 +0000
Received: from DFWEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com ([10.193.5.50]) by dfweml702-chm ([10.193.5.72]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 07:35:29 -0800
From: Lucy yong <lucy.yong@huawei.com>
To: "Heidi Ou (hou)" <hou@cisco.com>, "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: AQHQVP6C3fHHbIb7TU6tqwGiHA3JiQ==
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 15:35:28 +0000
Message-ID: <2691CE0099834E4A9C5044EEC662BB9D4545A8AE@dfweml701-chm>
References: <54F0C313.1020901@gmail.com> <D1162027.DBE79%hou@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D1162027.DBE79%hou@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.145.116]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/C73vU5ToLnZ7N-qwG_fyGO9GAjY>
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: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 15:35:45 -0000

Hi Heidi,

PIM is rarely deployed in DC networks. There are quite concerns to use PIM in DC network that will support NVO3. 

AS Weiguo points out, this work aims to an improved IGP (i.e., support multicast routing) for DC networks. We can address technical concerns. 

Regards,
Lucy

-----Original Message-----
From: pim [mailto:pim-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Heidi Ou (hou)
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 6:18 PM
To: pim@ietf.org; pim-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [pim] New Version Notification for, draft-yong-rtgwg-igp-multicast-arch-00.txt

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

_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
pim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email