Re: [pim] Sticky PIM DR, should it be added to PIM DR improvements or different draft

zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn Fri, 04 December 2020 03:33 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 8762D3A12B6 for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 19:33:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.916
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.916 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_NONELEMENT_30_40=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 auiwKMoHzzhV for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 19:33:22 -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 16C913A12B3 for <pim@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 19:33:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.238]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id C7BFF71A8EC08315FED8; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 11:33:19 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp02.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.201]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 0B43XANT018843; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 11:33:10 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp04[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 11:33:10 +0800 (CST)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 11:33:10 +0800 (CST)
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afc5fc9adf6d873129d
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202012041133107131056@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <CAHANBt+0gd2BsTFxUw8DGSnh+dEXJXeRFLKyUg=KaefHQ35mSw@mail.gmail.com>
References: ECA54067-A11D-4A88-A9F8-6F41DBC29552@cisco.com, CAHANBt+0gd2BsTFxUw8DGSnh+dEXJXeRFLKyUg=KaefHQ35mSw@mail.gmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
To: <stig@venaas.com>, <mankamis=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: <pim@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 0B43XANT018843
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/PtiNU6Lw5yNk2AW_3Fnf6MM08_k>
Subject: Re: [pim] =?utf-8?q?Sticky_PIM_DR=2C_should_it_be_added_to_PIM_DR_im?= =?utf-8?q?provements_or_different_draft?=
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, 04 Dec 2020 03:33:25 -0000

Hi Stig, Mankamana, 


The function defined in PIM DR Improvement doesn't need the new priority advertisement. 


AD asked that if the two drafts will considered to be combined into one draft. 


If they are combined, two functions can be introduced in one draft, except the existed PIM DR hello options, the other choice is the new priority announcement. 


PIM DR Improvement draft is open for add the new functions, or keep it still, either is OK. 



AD, chairs, anyone's suggestion is welcomed! :-)


Best regards,


Sandy



原始邮件



发件人:StigVenaas
收件人:Mankamana Mishra (mankamis);
抄送人:pim@ietf.org;
日 期 :2020年12月04日 10:07
主 题 :Re: [pim] Sticky PIM DR, should it be added to PIM DR improvements or different draft


Hi
 
If I understand the dr-improvement draft correctly, it supports sticky
DR as is. Isn't that the main purpose of the draft, aside from also
electing a BDR? The DR Address Option would announce the address of
the sticky DR. Why would you need to announce the priority?
 
Regards,
Stig
 
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 9:51 AM Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)
<mankamis=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> All,
> 
> 
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pim-dr-improvement-10 draft briefly talks about PIM DR being sticky. But does not have much detail yet.  There are providers who do want to use Sticky PIM DR functionality. Since DR improvement talks about Hello options and carry elected PIM DR . There are two options.
> 
> 
> 
> Add new Sticky PIM DR procedures to this draft
> Have new draft which talks only about sticky PIM DR without any hello option
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brief about Sticky PIM DR procedures
> 
> If Sticky DR is configured in PIM router , initial DR election happens it is defined in PIM RFC today.
> To make sure now elected DR does not give up it DR role, now it will start advertising PIM_DR_MAX_Priority (this number to be reserved from DR priority value )
> Now if any new router comes up, it will never try to take role of DR since at step2 elected DR was advertising highest priority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the brief about what would go in draft.
> 
> 
> 
> Any input would be appreciated.
> 
> 
> 
> Mankamana
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
 
_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
pim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim