IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pim] draft-wijnands-pim-source-discovery-bsr call for adoption

Stefan Olofsson <solofsso.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 15 November 2013 08:27 UTC

Return-Path: <solofsso.ietf@gmail.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 AD42721F9A59 for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 00:27:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bTW2+NHekJBP for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 00:27:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pb0-x229.google.com (mail-pb0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A22A11E80DC for <pim@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 00:27:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pb0-f41.google.com with SMTP id jt11so3271858pbb.14 for <pim@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 00:27:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:references :to:in-reply-to; bh=TlqgdDzQSDf7YPrg/zPg5dLl5Spx4kIk91HASVPl0Os=; b=EMuCg68CMpjBHFhT6LClfSJOa+nZ2Nw4bqn7MQ5PlVkDbhtnCKhttXheKqtULnP3Ct TRy60obLvJVrA9KkLVA3/8qBpwxTHWwxPmr2wgwbsf26ikM6HhhNliu7zCxFobE73u+6 h0RgTSMHwzNyKRuEV02AOF8j7OSK6JPvh2iPsyhEgv8V/p8mGqC2xTotO318UaR+hrTK gnLEGMscS4xP2ZneSa7ReYXshAmqX+DnZ0McVx22qQoPpioPprIKyjZf0LvdjhbRjtd7 +oBV5JQhDLuWJyFgWgGoc8Y0ZyCv9M3qtYNZiNjNY6s4e9YJw4NxGu15dHasb/ALVfTn 2MhQ==
X-Received: by 10.67.23.164 with SMTP id ib4mr5830005pad.42.1384504066820; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 00:27:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.17.134.102] (173-164-209-210-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [173.164.209.210]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id bp5sm2833392pbb.18.2013.11.15.00.27.45 for <pim@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 15 Nov 2013 00:27:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Stefan Olofsson <solofsso.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_DD5BF86A-846D-4440-BA5F-77C014D6B32F"
Message-Id: <F6CCF9D3-A01B-4F1E-893A-017005DB8EC2@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 00:27:45 -0800
References: <CAL3FGfwjWs-uwxNK8cxQQq-9Fm6MMMFsJz1DwODCZwLrJ7VYDg@mail.gmail.com> <E75A5287-8588-4F87-8A11-1A3E5300599C@cisco.com>
To: pim@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <E75A5287-8588-4F87-8A11-1A3E5300599C@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Subject: Re: [pim] draft-wijnands-pim-source-discovery-bsr call for adoption
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 15 Nov 2013 08:27:47 -0000

Support.

Rgds
/Stefan


The authors of draft-wijnands-pim-source-discovery-bsr-03 have requested that we initiate a call for adoption of their draft which they presented in our last meeting in Berlin. Notes from that presentation are below. Please comment over the next week (before ietf week) on your interest/non-interest with adoption of this draft.

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wijnands-pim-source-discovery-bsr-03.txt

thanks,
mike

draft-wignands-pim-source-discovery-bsr-03 (Ice)
highly redudant mcast network without single point of failure.  
Ice: the sources are what's relevant. 10k s,gs. Not introducing a new routing protocol.
Jeffrey: Could use mospf. pim bidir is another viable approach. With bidir, while the RPA canbe an address that is not tried to any router (the address would be associated with a LAN), the LAN that the RPA is on could become partitioned. When that happens, traffic cannot be exchanged on the LAN between the partitions, affecting lots of receivers. That's the problem using PIM-BIDIR instead of BSR flooing. However, that can be easily resolved by a protocol extension. I should be able to publish it for the next IETF meeting. With that resolved, PIM bidir will be a better solution for the targeted deployment scenario.
Mike: applaud any efforts to make multicast more simple. But flooding may be a problem.
1 room interested. 2 operators on draft interested. Mike will poll on list.

_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
pim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
> ==============================================
> stig: one issue with bidir is you don't have the optimal path.
> Hitoshi: flooding is not typically optimal.
> Ice: its only using mechanisms that exist today with bsr.
> Hitoshi: Why not use SAP (I'm not a fan of SAP though)? Whats the meaning of flooding. Use MSDP if interdomain?
> Ice; this is a case where you don't know the source. bsr based flooding. not inter domain discussion. Enterprise network.
> 
>> Jeffrey: Of the 10k flows how many groups?
>> operator DT: I like the use case and support.
>> jeffrey: the amount of information is more with today.
>> lighthouse networks: you mentioned dns, why can't you use that?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email