Re: [pim] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pim-drlb-13

Alvaro Retana <> Thu, 07 November 2019 16:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D783412094F; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 08:35:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R3anC_qVji3Q; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 08:35:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::436]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B3FD120972; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 08:35:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id e6so3824286wrw.1; Thu, 07 Nov 2019 08:35:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=K9Qtyi2/nJkXQqvh446qOL6hJhEo2WPD6wfUEanHbds=; b=TSEaGoXSbHx0j2wQsIuvSLHJBSikO3MGf3ECGMdJnZ21kbns7tIttVRl1rgag31wof zq57+rSgqxneIZxS3iHNHljBCxtquT+qP5xXaFnJo1VmtI8VdjEAUw0mw94TqEc/AHTi F0MEbv6DsMf+4P69ikQqexNDm/B1O5fZrpPTtwaZLSJC0zxz/WjuZz/OZEM+ZkqfPG2J s52XpvdpfQSs+m+R+tCH6FNHpdMt6Jy+W5HXYpb0ikvBNkOc9kS74/8Rl616sjTXh8xG Gufc7kK/+5n03C7VvoMvCoj9mEe+7utytAG2zjf4xD/7nZciLWeJVejWuSkp7RQXAv02 qXAw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=K9Qtyi2/nJkXQqvh446qOL6hJhEo2WPD6wfUEanHbds=; b=dglPJU7bYVfoyhvTGFzOaK61R2CdKi9zrOxK5w5dCIFaYHgOTQvv/vsW6HAOCxsXtt rePwX0/XMPYcSFXVY2zLM7oQ/Lxg6gBXQFWbnB8n3Ti9UpzYjlPGbNmRNsBxySqAnDa5 ywXbjxsZjxjWfH5xyuNyqEcdpa+z1yKYNcRvpQjG6g9MQzbcgoLrk9ZgukyfIz/xvEIb jMf9uuppGBtLtEpFvLsvrJEhsVUR9uB3nZrc+RwPW4mIgW++/L4RcLAh+3jd6yxe4F9k uU6ibTEr2LZ85pVbF1zBvCgwgenIwBsYwHTNp612ULLs5NHPwsUB4k/KvG0NnffiXsDY vpAA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVUa6OQdBbZhyf4Lo6UVbjBrUXOE3q75El8BSK83B8hISwxo7Bb VWoAmGsteI0F5ua9TcGVy+hR/E7XDX0AzKcp9ZyJaRb1
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxkiMO32sQt/PlLgw0lvbzNxB2EkofMfcw3+D4egg40r2gp0EvKkvWD7gRCOwOoKRqpLtxa2lwuhENyHWfLOdw=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:8481:: with SMTP id 1mr4116007wrg.189.1573144539572; Thu, 07 Nov 2019 08:35:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by with HTTPREST; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 08:35:38 -0800
From: Alvaro Retana <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 08:35:38 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To:, Pete Resnick <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [pim] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-pim-drlb-13
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 16:35:47 -0000

On November 5, 2019 at 6:58:52 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:



> Finally, my "interesting note":
> I see in the shepherd report:
> ----
> (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
> disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
> and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
> Yes, there is IPR and it has been declared with #1713.
> (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
> If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
> disclosures.
> Yes, IPR has been declared and the WG has been notified.
> ----
> That seems to indicate that nobody had any comment about the IPR declaration.
> But I also see noted in the shepherd report, "Cisco has an implementation of
> this protocol. No other vendors have indicated plan to implement the
> specification". That leads to a pretty obvious question: Are other vendors not
> implementing this because of the IPR (which you'd think would be a concern), or
> are other vendors planning on implementing this in the future, or is this just
> a Cisco-private extension that requires no interoperability? It seems curious
> that there was no discussion at all.

Not having discussions about IPR is normal in the Routing Area.  I
would consider having a discussion about it curious. ;-)

The sentence you quoted above from the Shepherd report is incomplete,
it says: “No other vendors have indicated plan to implement the
specification but they support publication of this draft.”  I don’t
know the reasons why other vendors are not implementing — another
obvious possibility is simply that they don’t have immediate customer
demand.  The WG is cc’d, so someone may want to chime in.

The extension in this draft requires signaling and coordination
between multiple routers; the dynamic nature of agreeing on which
router is the GDR is what requires interoperability between the
different routers.  This type of load balancing can be useful wherever
multiple PIM DRs exist, so I don’t think it can be considered a
private extension, or applicable only in single-vendor deployments.

Thanks for the careful review and for including interesting notes.