IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pim] comments on draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing-09

Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> Fri, 10 September 2021 20:33 UTC

Return-Path: <stig@venaas.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 623BA3A1A09 for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 13:33:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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=venaas-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 KX_qEuJJoqoB for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 13:33:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2d.google.com (mail-io1-xd2d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2d]) (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 91A543A1A07 for <pim@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 13:33:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2d.google.com with SMTP id n24so3921405ion.10 for <pim@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 13:33:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=venaas-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Rej4hlx+bQKGtcDfg11oI4365RJMKqYEs0K1vWHhTvo=; b=tUTWxTMeMGc69QhLCIVr5Hmxt8Gaf+y+YSP7Mck77cW9IFPiEU1stYnkSJYrf+riqh Yi/H25T5Jyimpx++o/iySlRhpLGgQHi15xVsjO0fBNUyKyHD1M4imTPl0CvJJtdREQL/ QxWt+tiuIljCI2g33MYT1B7MVJWrodYuxufyF+Z93TrLpsJ2MomIPsAwtxrcSZPMrtBH 6zQ1ghzcx53/t0XKKMnX9spqztGLD25wHoMs2/Cs7hsauD/gRUkry8raKb5POUcf7dA/ JSA5kCGSbX0mJYt8/YgN9oY8vmTE1jIbduR7fyET5IRXOPC/bqPgxE+TIcp5UFKU3SUR CbPg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Rej4hlx+bQKGtcDfg11oI4365RJMKqYEs0K1vWHhTvo=; b=JU0Z49L3369lHOVUyd/e/kmTGhbKnTdQC1Q9+Yt8Bm+lL6WUSSJIA0z08uWOja+oSC AYjZkuWBnrUkvVxhmt3LL3hM8du6NNFOL4BQDm32DgglHWq7hCNxhCrfVFXVrGHWTk0Q lIACYpSmMhGKO1vnAEA1WefaK+Kd9wj1n049ruznWnhUH0eyKFHdXhZvw1xiMnQjgnsX kticCVRwAzpRaXzOa7naL8obVxAs47H0KoAGDOMttiGSC2DVMaohDJly//3IZ2ptsVkE EfdT17dADou/qPDqQDrgD8MEuASwy+ORp4qwhw1fCG0FFATE35vj60llwwNOFounDbJD 56Dg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531aiBOwqhj2fd5vnUeDBUTLQ33mYjLoHqqVHoDPhgB9QZQK+ysB 6oa2FpZIYGkZWfHvLIvtxA/QvQPAtpr95nDEx9bFAQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxTJRZgaq5YHM/WZvjVmTGagT6/hzDuRZIuuiUAd+49/sOffwL/G4pibCZDK/dt9ES255ifEzJQz6v3Fh4kQTo=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:9d01:: with SMTP id j1mr8764212ioj.27.1631305993770; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 13:33:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <202105241051460723178@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <202105241051460723178@zte.com.cn>
From: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 13:33:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHANBt+vT=tGCrLzQiJ2QhXr07P=mLgzFXj6tk11MaqbrW_Ejg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "zhang.zheng" <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
Cc: vkamath@vmware.com, "Ramakrishnan Chokkanathapuram (ramaksun)" <ramaksun@cisco.com>, rbanthia@apstra.com, ananygop@cisco.com, pim@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/E-oM1ZY6hvsSXcfUee7PIXPmYCM>
Subject: Re: [pim] comments on draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing-09
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: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 20:33:21 -0000

Hi Sandy and authors

Thanks a lot for your input Sandy. I don't think there has been any
follow-up by the authors.

Authors, can you please respond to this? It looks like some changes
may be needed, or do you believe the latest version addresses any
concerns?

My understanding is that packing only applies to null-register, while
it makes sense to use the P-bit also in data registers.

Thanks,
Stig


On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 7:52 PM <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn> wrote:
>
> Hi authors,
>
> Thank you for the 09 version update! The version makes more clear about the function.
>
> I have some comments for the new 09 version:
>
> 1. In the combinations 1 in section 5, there is
>
> "As specified in [[RFC7761]], the DR sends PIM Null-Register
>
>           messages towards the RP when a new source is detected."
>
> I noticed that the "Register messages" has been changed to "Null-Register messages". The change seems like to be confusion.
>
> Because "when a new source is detected", the DR sends data-register to the RP other than null-register.
>
> After the RP builds the tree to the DR, RP can set the P-bit in the register-stop message sent to the DR, that is the RP can set the P-bit when it starts to send register-stop to the DR.
>
> So IMO in this sentence, the "PIM Null-Register" may go back to "PIM register".
>
> 2. In case the RP enables the packed capability and works well, but the network manager disables the packed capability in the RP. During the switch, there may be two ways:
>
> One is that the RP can still parse the packed null-register messages, but it sends the register-stop message without P-bit set. Then the DR sends the unpacked null-register to the RP.
>
> The other is that the RP stops to parse the packed null-register messages right now, the DR may not receive the register-stop message with P-bit set/clear from the RP, then the DR may send the new un-packed register message after the timer expired and then receives the register-stop message with P-bit clear from the RP.
>
> I am not sure which one is prefer in this draft. IMO it may be better to add some description about the switch issue.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Sandy
>
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email