Re: [pim] AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-drlb-10
"Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)" <mankamis@cisco.com> Mon, 26 August 2019 15:40 UTC
Return-Path: <mankamis@cisco.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 20557120115; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 08:40:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 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, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=jf7Mj9rK; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=r9ZeDdki
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 e-LSB5--T5-g; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 08:40:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66FA5120071; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 08:40:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=13660; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1566834010; x=1568043610; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=xhcFjhhuqIgneHTiUQgbxoBqTKAXClxuZ1II5lLa0+Y=; b=jf7Mj9rKDboXbF+TG1f0Qjf/GwgGqT7MSN/f2DQazw7TUbeDXiBLQj9h fsXwmRsH/Qb4H2aT6tawfnXXCdzuxJax57FmoQCcRl5k0ca3SZ64Gt7KL eZvvFeMvniPc7GGYCNjT3/KjRe49YnifzO/cA1ZE0idCYeArx3CzGxco/ I=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:SZ2T5BNwEslmPbGzHSsl6mtXPHoupqn0MwgJ65Eul7NJdOG58o//OFDEu6w/l0fHCIPc7f8My/HbtaztQyQh2d6AqzhDFf4ETBoZkYMTlg0kDtSCDBj+JfjpZik7B+xJVURu+DewNk0GUMs=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ALAABt/GNd/4gNJK1kGgEBAQEBAgEBAQEHAgEBAQGBUwUBAQEBCwGBRCQFJwNtViAECyoKhBeDRwOEUoYbgjcliWCOCIEuFIEQA1QJAQEBDAEBIwoCAQGEPwIXglAjNAkOAgoBAQQBAQECAQYEbYUtDIVKAQEBAQMSEREMAQEyBQELBAIBCA4DAwECAwImAgICHxEVCAgCBAENBSKDAAGBagMdAQIMnVYCgTiIYXOBMoJ7AQEFgTIBg0wNC4IWAwaBDCgBhHyFV4EeGIFAP4EQAScME4F8UD6CGkcCgSkRJyaCZTKCJowgEg6CXY4bjUktQAkCgh6GaoUBhF6DehuCMocwjm2NaIdrgX+OPAIEAgQFAg4BAQWBUDiBWHAVOyoBgkGCQgsBF4EEAQeCQ4IGgw6FP3IBgSiLVYExAYEgAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,433,1559520000"; d="scan'208";a="314752716"
Received: from alln-core-3.cisco.com ([173.36.13.136]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 26 Aug 2019 15:40:07 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-012.cisco.com (xch-rcd-012.cisco.com [173.37.102.22]) by alln-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x7QFe2RN011719 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 26 Aug 2019 15:40:07 GMT
Received: from xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) by XCH-RCD-012.cisco.com (173.37.102.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:40:05 -0500
Received: from xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) by xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:40:04 -0400
Received: from NAM01-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (173.37.151.57) by xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:40:04 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=dDsysK94+Paz/e298k5fjpV+Vr6oLElitJ5kz9eQIb3Q7FrVrNgiiJCjt7DaJXAgW0w5t2u0tzLpMWual6N5mzGB/oS/Fsaefwzgp05IWepais97zg0cbhIq4wRzvTfZF36ezBIFHve6kKJtd0OUZ/nzgU9Ovw4tLroeFbBx98PYQ2q+F8BbRB1Oe8J/A+sEk+sVXW+6+rhwRUFYRoI2VCaLOqtBJC6MlZhiWdpVET2XdNTPqal5fHvn0urHilyK3nt+Px8ZjK3a0yiDvw/8zJw1sVaiiGaZ72S0o/zGZdAauCrXtoAVS9EI11B4l5DhA4CfJ4Mb+N69eSPrXBa+vg==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=xhcFjhhuqIgneHTiUQgbxoBqTKAXClxuZ1II5lLa0+Y=; b=I54j6maM+3OBUM9Aeu5hLn56aSf4nyeW1Caq3kVlKM1tJuYYCrpSkCpa4y4Riwgp43BUf1hA2dRyZKCPcThRTSJpfQee9OLMfk2OhzTiae2ds5deaxQPoWdcKEKfRfJEuIw1B2/1d3dZgwUkPOTL9wdkp3pPPbGQ0QZoqkQ+U6HWTXnRqxGlNSH0PipsSmS5w8rVHDtSkNNoPgzv2ttgzf3uCEj3zMca/z/RrrETf2XIRzp6Rq0ZN4KluAHz+dOtjY7iORfZTPDEmh4swIVI55XffkgQI8pHWlenIbHUV1sX9LW2kAfG9azXKeItlxiKIQqCar/vbB0BJhudnf6gTg==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=xhcFjhhuqIgneHTiUQgbxoBqTKAXClxuZ1II5lLa0+Y=; b=r9ZeDdki5VGqHdXr03Auz2nrxAYp87LKTKYvEzngxRE5xIeqEEbEes8R8txVvZtkTfH92o+/KGXoGpeEJTyJ7WRg/T5AbWAVUnlVtR4UrE+TAxFGXXq36dxxFOOuyQhaYC1TtTmyxTFaGRZRRrYLn+wXKq+p5SFjfXfF6MhxoUo=
Received: from BYAPR11MB3685.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.237.158) by BYAPR11MB3240.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.177.184.77) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2199.20; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 15:40:02 +0000
Received: from BYAPR11MB3685.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::cc1b:6af7:8174:e33a]) by BYAPR11MB3685.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::cc1b:6af7:8174:e33a%6]) with mapi id 15.20.2199.021; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 15:40:02 +0000
From: "Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)" <mankamis@cisco.com>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-pim-drlb@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pim-drlb@ietf.org>
CC: "pim-chairs@ietf.org" <pim-chairs@ietf.org>, "pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org>, Mike McBride <mmcbride7@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-drlb-10
Thread-Index: AQHVKFDvO19swEHu50SBN++o1NtrTacN7FsA//+WtwA=
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 15:40:02 +0000
Message-ID: <96800DA5-0F6B-435C-8874-D7B483EA20B9@cisco.com>
References: <CAMMESszYeVa9_2EMQjNCUP-8PzK3g_Zbv0cQ5vi7nA8j4Kp9Fw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMMESswGm4Qe514m1XSdbZEAHWoE-FyW1=fDriDCB-FvsuLLNA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESswGm4Qe514m1XSdbZEAHWoE-FyW1=fDriDCB-FvsuLLNA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=mankamis@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [128.107.241.167]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 04413d31-18a1-4146-e8d8-08d72a3ba93b
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600166)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:BYAPR11MB3240;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR11MB3240:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BYAPR11MB3240A69FA721E56BFA3FB2B8DFA10@BYAPR11MB3240.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 01415BB535
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(366004)(376002)(39860400002)(396003)(136003)(346002)(51444003)(13464003)(189003)(199004)(66946007)(6512007)(66066001)(966005)(478600001)(6306002)(76116006)(6436002)(5660300002)(53936002)(7736002)(305945005)(6246003)(25786009)(26005)(2616005)(6486002)(71190400001)(11346002)(71200400001)(4326008)(66574012)(33656002)(446003)(476003)(36756003)(54906003)(486006)(14454004)(86362001)(66446008)(64756008)(53546011)(66476007)(6506007)(66556008)(99286004)(102836004)(2906002)(186003)(110136005)(8676002)(229853002)(2501003)(316002)(81156014)(81166006)(76176011)(8936002)(3846002)(6116002)(256004)(14444005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BYAPR11MB3240; H:BYAPR11MB3685.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: rxEcScJz9a2/wHVExuFhGb7hvbHLHI0dluSI9JB9C8aot10FDFIB/LhLQihy4y7+vZbfmDdekp9W0SmDFO8Csw21OK05r8491zzCitksnZZWG7gCDhI5ORuluP38c+JUlZ3HB9P6H1wVXm3pUV2mXIhlXftsB8p0m7G5PmlZ3acmuqwS0s3YGGKKXONtlo7lrxXl66p6tynTUVdRManHUZO66SsviS4RNUBc2V0mDgt/K/GGftZE+neMDQdI6YiMOcelQkDQkDTaHzNl/u566RgqIfv/MlJ/0ju//S2zcTb5epBnGqGspyVQ+fqfSIqHh+GQfOdGs/PJqB1wMbpfUnZdn07JEzyt0BsW6LClr83HcSH4HVKpJ82utjP1blSk7ThI06AJGqw/ZHoSHtxtqYmsj+xYdOVScE5NOifi7KQ=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <458B62A1B72BDD4D81FD3EBC3749B19A@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 04413d31-18a1-4146-e8d8-08d72a3ba93b
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 26 Aug 2019 15:40:02.5138 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: sDigqXGLiSno1KqUy5ruorJbbrNf9tJBL/bVivFes6aytVtuHKkD0BjCUrdupogpXiYvoGNd55UAXz7ndYB1RQ==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR11MB3240
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.22, xch-rcd-012.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/KkLl4L6eLjVF-xoEaTC0_XeOx2M>
Subject: Re: [pim] AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-drlb-10
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: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 15:40:13 -0000
Hi Alvaro, Me & Stig would go over your comments and address it soon. Thanks Mankamana -----Original Message----- From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Date: Monday, August 26, 2019 at 7:57 AM To: "draft-ietf-pim-drlb@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pim-drlb@ietf.org> Cc: "pim-chairs@ietf.org" <pim-chairs@ietf.org>, "pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org>, Mike McBride <mmcbride7@gmail.com> Subject: Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-drlb-10 Resent-From: <alias-bounces@ietf.org> Resent-To: <yiqun.cai@alibaba-inc.com>, <hou@cisco.com>, <svallepa@cisco.com>, <mankamis@cisco.com>, <stig@cisco.com>, <andy.da.green@bt.com> Resent-Date: Monday, August 26, 2019 at 7:57 AM Hi! It’s been a while since this review…any thoughts? Thanks! Alvaro. On June 21, 2019 at 12:46:30 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana.ietf@gmail.com) wrote: Dear authors: First of all, thank you for reviving this work!! I just finished reading the document and have significant concerns (please see details in line). In fact, I am pointing at the same general issue that the original AD review [1] did: under-specification. Adding text in 6.2 has resulted in behavior being specified (inconsistently!) more than once. Also, the specification of the Hash Algorithm is included in §4 (Functional Overview). Not being in an appropriately named section is significant. Please move this part to §6 (Protocol Specification), or maybe its own section. Even though there is much work needed, I don't want to return this document to the WG and risk more delay. While some major issues will require changes, I think that many of them are about the structure of the document. If needed, I will rely on Mike (Chair/Shepherd) to coordinate further WG review. Thanks! Alvaro. [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/K61q4--5ZBb9RTMkeud-5MnmuOw [Line numbers from id-nits.] ... 90 1. Introduction 92 On a multi-access LAN such as an Ethernet, one of the PIM routers is 93 elected as a DR. The PIM DR has two roles in the PIM-SM protocol. 94 On the first hop LAN, the PIM DR is responsible for registering an 95 active source with the Rendezvous Point (RP) if the group is 96 operating in PIM-SM. On the last hop LAN, the PIM DR is responsible 97 for tracking local multicast listeners and forwarding to these 98 listeners if the group is operating in PIM-SM. [minor] The first reference to rfc7761 is below, when talking about DR election. Consider moving that reference to this first paragraph so that the stage is set early. [nit] I know DR was extended in the Abstract, the acronym is used above and the extended version again below... Please extend DR above and use the contracted form elsewhere. ... 114 Assume R1 is elected as the Designated Router. According to 115 [RFC7761], R1 will be responsible for forwarding traffic to that LAN 116 on behalf of any local members. In addition to keeping track of IGMP 117 and MLD membership reports, R1 is also responsible for initiating the 118 creation of source and/or shared trees towards the senders or the 119 RPs. [minor] We need Informative references to IGMP and MLD. 121 Forcing sole data plane forwarding responsibility on the PIM DR 122 uncovers a limitation in the protocol. In comparison, even though an 123 OSPF DR or an IS-IS DIS handles additional duties while running the 124 OSPF or IS-IS protocols, they are not required to be solely 125 responsible for forwarding packets for the network. On the other 126 hand, on a last hop LAN, only the PIM DR is asked to forward packets 127 while the other routers handle only control traffic (and perhaps drop 128 packets due to RPF failures). Hence the forwarding load of a last 129 hop LAN is concentrated on a single router. [minor] "In comparison..." I think that comparing the PIM DR to an OSPF DR/IS-IS DIS is completely out of place since the justification for this work is to share forwarding responsibilities...and the IGP DR/DIS are not responsible for forwarding at all! IOW, the comparison doesn't make sense. [minor] RPF failures are only mentioned here. Either expand on them and explain why they are relevant to this work, or remove the text to avoid confusion. 131 This leads to several issues. One of the issues is that the 132 aggregated bandwidth will be limited to what R1 can handle towards 133 this particular interface. It is very common that the last hop LAN 134 consists of switches that run IGMP/MLD or PIM snooping. This allows 135 the forwarding of multicast packets to be restricted only to segments 136 leading to receivers who have indicated their interest in multicast 137 groups using either IGMP or MLD. The emergence of the switched 138 Ethernet allows the aggregated bandwidth to exceed, sometimes by a 139 large number, that of a single link. For example, let us modify 140 Figure 1 and introduce an Ethernet switch in Figure 2. [nit] "this particular interface" Which interface? I'm sure you mean the one to the core networks...but please be explicit. [minor] "IGMP/MLD or PIM snooping" We need a reference. ... 184 There is a limitation in the hash algorithm used in this document, 185 but this document provides the option to have different and more 186 consistent hash algorithms in the future. [minor] I think that the limitations discussion should be left to §4.3.1. IOW, I suggest taking this paragraph out. ... 193 2. Terminology 195 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 196 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 197 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. [major] Please use the rfc8174 template. ... 204 o GDR: GDR stands for "Group Designated Router". For each multicast 205 flow, either a (*,G) for ASM, or an (S,G) for SSM, a hash 206 algorithm (described below) is used to select one of the routers 207 as a GDR. The GDR is responsible for initiating the forwarding 208 tree building process for the corresponding multicast flow. [nit] s/GDR: GDR stands for "Group Designated Router"./GDR: Group Designated Router. [minor] ASM needs to be expanded 210 o GDR Candidate: a last hop router that has the potential to become 211 a GDR. A GDR Candidate must have the same DR priority and must 212 run the same GDR election hash algorithm as the DR router. It 213 must send and process new PIM Hello Options as defined in this 214 document. There might be more than one GDR Candidate on a LAN, 215 but only one can become GDR for a specific multicast flow. [major] This paragraph uses "must" several times. Should that be Normative language? [??] Why is it a requirement to have the same DR priority? It seems to me that there would be more options and even better load sharing if more routers could be GDR. ... 229 4. Functional Overview ... 256 Hash Masks are defined for Source, Group and RP separately, in order 257 to handle PIM ASM/SSM. The masks, as well as a sorted list of GDR 258 Candidate Addresses, are announced by the DR in a new DR Load 259 Balancing GDR (DRLBGDR) PIM Hello Option. [nit / personal opinion] The abbreviations for the new Options are awful -- I keep having to think about the meaning and whether they are spelled correctly at every step. Perhaps something reader-friendly acronyms would be better. Suggestions: - DR Load Balancing Capability PIM Hello Option: LB Option - DR Load Balancing GDR PIM Hello Option: GDR List Option (maybe even GL) 261 A hash algorithm based on the announced Source, Group, or RP masks 262 allows one GDR to be assigned to a corresponding multicast state. 263 And that GDR is responsible for initiating the creation of the 264 multicast forwarding tree for multicast traffic. [major] Is there a possibility that the assigned GDR for a specific multicast state can't fulfill its duties? This document assumes that all the GDRs are able to service all states...but that may not be true. Because every GDR candidate calculates who the GDR is for a specific state, it may never know what an alternate GDR is not able to forward traffic. [Does this make sense?] 266 4.1. GDR Candidates 268 GDR is the new concept introduced by this specification. GDR 269 Candidates are routers eligible for GDR election on the LAN. To 270 become a GDR Candidate, a router MUST support this specification, 271 have the same DR priority and run the same GDR election hash 272 algorithm as the DR on the LAN. [nit] There is a lot of repetition in the text...for example, all the contents on this paragraph were already mentioned in the last section... Cleaning up the text would be nice. [major] "To become a GDR Candidate, a router MUST support this specification..." First of all, this is an obvious statement: the GDR is defined in this document. Second, there's no Normative value in using MUST
- [pim] AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-drlb-10 Alvaro Retana
- Re: [pim] AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-drlb-10 Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)
- Re: [pim] AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-drlb-10 Stig Venaas
- Re: [pim] AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-drlb-10 Alvaro Retana
- Re: [pim] AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-drlb-10 Stig Venaas
- Re: [pim] AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-drlb-10 (no… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [pim] AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-drlb-10 (no… Stig Venaas
- Re: [pim] AD Review of draft-ietf-pim-drlb-10 (no… Alvaro Retana