Re: [pim] Publishing draft-ietf-pim-dr-improvement-08

Gyan Mishra <> Sat, 12 October 2019 14:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4A0312008F; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 07:40:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.996
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.996 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 M21dUrgi5a3g; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 07:40:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FAF5120074; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 07:40:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id m61so18328333qte.7; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 07:40:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:mime-version:subject:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=+81QUXkLs/Dgeup8omPaNxLhpGu6VIv1pqrh5yEEu7o=; b=aHioOJksTnadMFtzU9EIgHogoJnY/dZS8DRS0fc1YYNo87eJ+as+EAWpQVf1v8kO+C VBLbgxdstTfwxy7A3P5wliN03B2YU0NbeX5f/MisUc13/wQO/R9zstLjniim6X45DGE4 mrERFIFedOyn1Oy1tb3HkyqrkeUt8uZ6BBmQ3T38lyZ4YG9B8yQkIKDDIjeDhfkT2asG dKkMGUdLZ4xuswZqI6ICuoDjkQ1Q1Hrdp8HA4GfezzRFInIVAljBeXGFT+AfiPgpa38S sKuAFlB5pwEsaP6Jk0kLTVCDg/r+ggxnEB80jGaxDuAa1UvfLMRIiFMrviRG4fGXPrgq cOkw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:subject:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=+81QUXkLs/Dgeup8omPaNxLhpGu6VIv1pqrh5yEEu7o=; b=HM2mUfA6WZ8XJBJYgfz13hkMjFS0h3cjnv219Z017/EIiPBdpCjIR4D7OdkT2xiBHd /CgCAw/0I6a0HeKkujBRRv16YvEe7WjT7/t95QoBV7Jg3oQgWvm8q/YgyfO05Ks9DIu9 JbHP8Cuc/dEdT1a4H6CqHI3vy/BYDpdLFIzZUjABgnh7urpF6SB0O+CN6p3OU/VuiItF Kfu2gcx9mSz2LatKyDpfePgRi3Eg63SlIIIptYWoMNKgIGd3hnV7DPpaIGF6+CPZJ0J9 8y+DqdeEZG5S13OgqivcGBPelQInqcCUT/+Fvc4P8xl3UVH+vM6ung6tKLropHNoaFPa HrAg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX+p1G4N/7nbpVRO2OOeiFBqah3RUSYG5oRp/lgioihzrLKu6V2 2jQNLbTU8rXnVRjOfnpVFdM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwjC7rv0w9caXdim5r/woq7JY45hGBm655NeVF97xBUXROnJYsLL5hkjg09wkoFyUzMfGvvZg==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:435b:: with SMTP id a27mr23550436qtn.242.1570891217073; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 07:40:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id o67sm5537768qkf.8.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 12 Oct 2019 07:40:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gyan Mishra <>
X-Google-Original-From: Gyan Mishra <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-1EA37FD7-AF9E-4E58-84F7-7066CF7FA071"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16G102)
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2019 10:40:15 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Gyan Mishra <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [pim] Publishing draft-ietf-pim-dr-improvement-08
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: Sat, 12 Oct 2019 14:40:21 -0000


In reviewing the draft I agree this is a much needed for PIM stability to prevent preemption from occurring when a PIM neighbor comes up with a higher priority.

I have seen this scenario come up many times and had caused many multicast outages over the years with PIM being enabled accidentally on a terminal server or L2 switch for a vlan and had a higher IP address and became the DR or had a higher priority configured and became the DR.

Is there a way to have a DR priority 0 to make the device non DR eligible similar to ospf DR priority 0.

I had posted PIM BFD spec from the BFD WG which helps tune down PIM timers to sub millisecond convergence which helps to get hitless convergence for LAN multipoint scenario and for MVPN, however this draft is critical to provide LHR DR stability and prevent DR preemption from occurring.  Also adding the role priority DR/BDR state I think also adds to faster convergence when the DR goes down.

In environments where MLAG or like Cisco proprietary vPC is used forwarding happens to both DR and BDR active/active state which is very common have PIM MRIB MFIB state on both routers so is that addressed how that would work in the draft. 

Also was wondering in the case of active backup for faster convergence is it possible for both DR and BDR to have their MRIB MFIB state table built for ASM SPT tree and with PIM BFD tuned down timers so that convergence becomes hitless.

Thank you 

Gyan Mishra 
Verizon Communications 
Cell 301 502-1347

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 11, 2019, at 8:58 PM, Gyan Mishra <> wrote:
> I agree that PIM SM DR process and failover does need improvements of which I would like to bring to everyone’s attention the BFD WG draft for PIM BFD for fast hitless convergence.
> Gyan Mishra
> Verizon Communications 
> Cell 301 502-1347
> Sent from my iPhone
>> On Oct 8, 2019, at 11:39 PM, <> <> wrote:
>> Hi, Stig
>> I don't know any other undisclosed IPR.
>> Thanks
>> Benchong Xu
>> 原始邮件
>> 发件人:StigVenaas <>
>> 收件人 <>; <>;
>> 日 期 :2019年10月09日 06:06
>> 主 题 :Re: Publishing draft-ietf-pim-dr-improvement-08
>> Hi
>> Looks that there are no concerns moving ahead with publication. Can
>> the authors, and any others that might know
>> anything about IPR, let us know if they are aware of any other IPR
>> claims than what has been filed already?
>> Stig
>> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 11:18 AM Stig Venaas <> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > An earlier version of this draft passed WGLC many months ago. However,
>> > as discussed in the WG we agreed it should have some text pointing out
>> > how it relates to draft-mankamana-pim-bdr-02 that we are considering
>> > for adoption. This text has now been added, as well as some other
>> > minor changes.
>> >
>> > Please look at revision 08 and speak up if you have any concerns.
>> >
>> > Authors, and others, please let us know if you are aware of any other
>> > IPR claims than the one that already has been filed.
>> >
>> > I'll wait a week or so to give people a chance to respond. We need at
>> > least all the authors to respond regarding IPR before proceeding
>> > though.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Stig
>> _______________________________________________
>> pim mailing list