Re: [pim] draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing wglc

<zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn> Tue, 04 February 2020 08:53 UTC

Return-Path: <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
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 3D994120130; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 00:53:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 VYw1owvqIQkS; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 00:53:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 216E7120074; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 00:53:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.164.217]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 263BA6BD82A5E3AED002; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 16:53:27 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.239]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id D6722CE9C8D4C314B883; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 16:53:26 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp02.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.201]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 0148r9jp049566; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 16:53:09 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp04[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Tue, 4 Feb 2020 16:53:09 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 16:53:09 +0800 (CST)
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afc5e3930f5e3b1b853
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202002041653091156166@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR13MB28077083071D9A073DE6FC7AF4070@BYAPR13MB2807.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
References: BYAPR13MB28077083071D9A073DE6FC7AF4070@BYAPR13MB2807.namprd13.prod.outlook.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
To: <michael.mcbride@futurewei.com>, <vkamath@vmware.com>, <ramaksun@cisco.com>, <rbanthia@cisco.com>
Cc: <pim@ietf.org>, <pim-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 0148r9jp049566
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/ODCRZTMhb_T_QQ5L702neQH2mQ4>
Subject: Re: [pim] =?utf-8?q?draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing_wglc?=
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: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 08:53:36 -0000

Hi chairs, authors,






I read this draft, IMO it can be moved on.


I have some comments on it:


The message format is from "draft-ietf-pim-reserved-bits", right? But I don't see the reference and description of draft-ietf-pim-reserved-bits.


If the optimized message defined in RFC8364 can be used here?


Should the fragment be mentioned here? Though the method is the same with RFC7761.


Anycast RP is mentioned in the draft, but the reference to RFC4610 is missed.






Thanks,


Sandy







原始邮件



发件人:MichaelMcBride <michael.mcbride@futurewei.com>
收件人:pim@ietf.org <pim@ietf.org>rg>;
日 期 :2020年01月31日 08:41
主 题 :[pim] draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing wglc


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



We are going to start a new wglc for https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing-04.txt which was updated based upon comments during the first wglc (please see below). Since we received only one comment, and really no one showing wglc support, we are issuing a new wglc.


 


Sometime over the next two weeks please let the wg know if it’s ready to be sent to the iesg for publication.


 


thanks,


mike


 



From: pim <pim-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Ramakrishnan Chokkanathapuram (ramaksun)
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 11:37 AM
To: Anish Peter <anish.ietf@gmail.com>om>; Mike McBride <mmcbride7@gmail.com>
Cc: pim@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [pim] draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing wglc




 


Hello Anish,


 


Thanks for the comments.. I have my responses inline..


 


Thanks,


Ramki


 



From: pim <pim-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Anish Peter <anish.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 at 7:20 AM
To: Mike McBride <mmcbride7@gmail.com>
Cc: "pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [pim] draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing wglc



 


Hi all,


 Read through the draft. Have a few comments. 


Section 2: The P bit can be taken as the LSB on the reserved ones. This would help this get inline with recommendations from PIM draft-ietf-pim-reserved-bits.


       ##Ramki##  Not sure if using LSB or MSB has an advantage here. I am not sure if the pim-reserved-bits mandates such thing.


Instead of taking two new pim message types, the same pim register and register stop messages may be used. if this procedure can be followed. 


##Ramki## It will be good to have a new type. If we overload the same type it could happen that a router receives a message and think its malformed.



a. RP discovers FHR capable of register bulking from the P bit. 



b. When RP responds to this register, it can set set a P bit in R-S message. 



c. Once FHR knows peer has bulking capability it can register packets with bulking



d. For bulked register messages, RP can respond with bulked R-S messages. 



e. Packet format. I suggest overloading existing register and R-S packet can be done with out using two new packet formats. 



Register 


    0                   1                   2                   3    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |PIM Ver| Type  |   Reserved    |           Checksum            |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |B|N|P|                     Reserved2             |  S-g-count  |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |                                                               |   .                     Multicast data packet                     .   |                                                               |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 



Register-stop



 

    0                   1                   2                   3    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |PIM Ver| Type  |  s-g-count  |P|           Checksum            |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |             Group Address (Encoded-Group format)              |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+   |            Source Address (Encoded-Unicast format)            |   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

3. Anycast RP


 In my opinion, anycast RP procedures must be defined. Protocols typically should notask for any kind of specific configurations or features on its peers.##Ramki## PIM Anycast RP is based on configuration. So not sure if this is a problem. 4. Restart / feature disableAn RP/FHR may restart or may have bullking turned on/off. In these scenarios the behavior must be defined.##Ramki## Yes. In such scenarios if an RP is downgraded from a version that was supporting packing to one that doesn’t support it, then RP will not respond to the packed registers. In such cases one could send an unpacked  register to RP to check if the RP supports it or fallback to data register and then discover the RP capability. Thanks,Anish

 



 


On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 6:58 AM Mike McBride <mmcbride7@gmail.com> wrote:



PIMers,

Today begins a two week wglc for draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing
which was presented at 105 and hasn't changed since April. Please give
it a read (it's a quick read) and provide feedback to this wg with
support/no support of it's progressing to iesg.

thanks,
mike

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing-03

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