IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pim] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-05

"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> Thu, 18 October 2018 18:01 UTC

Return-Path: <rrahman@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 76CC4130DFB; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 11:01:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.564
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.564 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.064, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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
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 TN6UFliSwxAg; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 11:01:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67449130EBF; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 11:01:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=28666; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1539885678; x=1541095278; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=4h6NMOTDwVFvLJ/pVV2PpY6RBviNk/EiEPZG9ErrsXM=; b=SQ8LPD32vJYiRyh+1wXRTPqeVSeCndAlPKaJ5vrZ7bOcghpuw/iQphqG kZWWOQJDk86tqwQho6iyO3ULT6DzZkhyEP1RA3Jtt63w6+PynwdDpCq5J 1O4o8dPN6D4VnPFy2yzXFMOLJlPep4kAqh7DrgtIArZKP7ssSFYDRxqD1 E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ADAABoychb/49dJa1kGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUQQBAQEBAQsBgQ13Zn8oCoNriBeMG4INlw+BegsBASeERQIXhGwhNA0NAQMBAQIBAQJtHAyFOQEBAQEDI1YQAgEGAhEDAQEBIQoCAgIwHQgCBA4FgyABgR1kD4sWm02BLoQsAQMCAQs/PYRiBYtNF4FBP4E4H4JMgxsBAQECAYF9gmMxggQiAohCJ3eETYYPiS5OCQKGWYoMEQaQJ4xMiVECERSBJh04gVVwFWUBgkEJhXuFFIU+bwGKHYEfAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,397,1534809600"; d="scan'208,217";a="187462669"
Received: from rcdn-core-7.cisco.com ([173.37.93.143]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Oct 2018 18:01:17 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (xch-aln-004.cisco.com [173.36.7.14]) by rcdn-core-7.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w9II1Hdw014876 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 18 Oct 2018 18:01:17 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-005.cisco.com (173.37.102.15) by XCH-ALN-004.cisco.com (173.36.7.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:01:16 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-005.cisco.com ([173.37.102.15]) by XCH-RCD-005.cisco.com ([173.37.102.15]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:01:16 -0500
From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
To: Hongji Zhao <hongji.zhao@ericsson.com>
CC: "pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org>, YANG Doctors <yang-doctors@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-05
Thread-Index: AQHUZkNsLOM6Zagayk61DqKTE7CU6qUkWsPAgAECmYA=
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 18:01:16 +0000
Message-ID: <EA46E761-9F3F-4A53-AB96-E8CFCDCE5CCE@cisco.com>
References: <B7E291AA-E083-4D86-B9A7-5A8400714179@cisco.com> <VI1PR07MB4192189BF36A749AED4D497396F80@VI1PR07MB4192.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <VI1PR07MB4192189BF36A749AED4D497396F80@VI1PR07MB4192.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.b.0.180311
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.86.253.209]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_EA46E7619F3F4A53AB96E8CFCDCE5CCEciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.14, xch-aln-004.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-7.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/RIDkZS7_7YRvgHnFRK9Ljcy5ds8>
Subject: Re: [pim] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-05
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: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 18:01:30 -0000

Hi Hongji,

Regarding no dependency on igmp-mld-yang, you are correct (I didn’t think this one through).

Regards,
Reshad.

From: Hongji Zhao <hongji.zhao@ericsson.com>
Date: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 11:44 PM
To: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
Cc: "pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org>, YANG Doctors <yang-doctors@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-05

Hi Reshad,

Thanks a lot for your review.

Regarding tje main issues/questions:

  *   igmp-snooping-instances (mld- also) are top level containers, I believe they should be under rt:control-plane-protocol (RFC8349). I should have raised this in the previous review.

              ------------------------I think it is ok, and will move igmp-snooping-instances under rt:control-plane-protocol

  *   Should there be a dependency on draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang, e.g. should we allow IGMP/MLD snooping configuration only if IGMP/MLD is enabled (leaf “enable”) or supported (feature-mld and feature-igmp)? E.g. I don’t think it makes sense to configure igmp-snooping if igmp is not supported.
                           -------------------------I think there is no dependency on draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang
                                                             IGMP is enabled on L3 router, but IGMP Snooping is enabled on L2 switch.  The switch snoops into IGMP Report and generates the mapping between port and Multicast MAC Address.
                                                             The IGMP Report is sent by host, passes the L2 switch, and to the L3 router.

                                                             So you can configure the IGMP snooping when IGMP is not enabled or supported.
                                                             In the current implementation of IGMP snooping, both Cisco and Huawei don’t need IGMP enabled.   (https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/routers/7600/ios/15S/configuration/guide/7600_15_0s_book/snooigmp.html)


Regarding other comments, I will research them and modify the draft ASAP.   Thanks a lot!


BR/Hongji
赵宏吉

From: Reshad Rahman (rrahman) <rrahman@cisco.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2018 2:01 AM
To: Hongji Zhao <hongji.zhao@ericsson.com>
Cc: pim@ietf.org; YANG Doctors <yang-doctors@ietf.org>
Subject: Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-05

Hi Hongji,

I have reviewed rev-05 (revised the existing review), see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-03-yangdoctors-early-rahman-2018-06-28/
…
…

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email