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

Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 04 December 2020 17:04 UTC

Return-Path: <aretana.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 A6E633A0E3D for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 09:04:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 pXc9WSwVxZF3 for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 09:04:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ej1-x630.google.com (mail-ej1-x630.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::630]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CDBF3A0E33 for <pim@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 09:04:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ej1-x630.google.com with SMTP id bo9so9629870ejb.13 for <pim@ietf.org>; Fri, 04 Dec 2020 09:04:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GMQfF8GQ5+Lt+TBsYm6vtfiT9PEOBLVpgDCj3Yiblx0=; b=Eueg/EYBxVAdAbrW0P/oTCy/32AnPihprktL1d03P3CN+RtVS/0djv08BVP0yhJM3n 2yOINnVFmFtKtEf2QtRwPOXTc2E05KfPkJRUE3H5jKZ1WfYlAQQLXCUyu9IAGkdHGMnm A3rdm2iT4z20TZs+l1BeYGXHAaNCwt7zhhkjl+73SiWySrXM1SbemF0ZoflL/dapEb3N Ft2IGN0C+tpvJvyVnmIT3fXTC6SF9j+5T+TpJTCFH2Es80HgfNZGwqk5zmJYRDuSEglw 3awVtFTLuLft8PllGc9upF0atDAus0q8+usrO18LAcGQL+f+KJ/8D0U8uMAyw9SpeWLo XjXg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GMQfF8GQ5+Lt+TBsYm6vtfiT9PEOBLVpgDCj3Yiblx0=; b=bfhdAZQd0sDQj+lFtl7WX4gcXuzNM8aqglQUPjGxX87Lqmbk6fOTMdeRv0Fg0p2ElD j5BwPZcLum9KL4MEiGmPEQmFWZ7Ii9LjcEyEda/XyUfHeBjCdiVNJ57dHgNP+B0QHcSI u3a5pTKmKXUDPDt4S27+5AWDP/DnBtEeS5CWm+EFEePbxJPEpc4IEKfYBVwWtJI8utGY HoC2qBS9YBT8zLM3HRuceDbv9+yRenKQJSTEgVUfWNsffM3/2Tw28T19SDtly9poUiV0 ZFMVp0DlpT+xcMaW0aYYJ9WimxRJRH8tuanHr1uXTYASQ+6qWr4h6ccEfiw0zylNWAxD Nbog==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532AAEn1GzXiovwzgkTeZPsazMTGLbXzuiuLvyLosFu7H0GjguCs 4zgyZdYY6tt8JJrqrRsbP9+9YIbi340lGqTYp9U=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzec3iywlMmgj5YzMzYYTi36UmMNgOhwR9XVVXqjYUaszthrYST1wZMRoV0Mtxz2oT47njquZk14jXptnllV0k=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:3f93:: with SMTP id hr19mr8291449ejc.235.1607101452096; Fri, 04 Dec 2020 09:04:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 09:04:11 -0800
From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHANBt+Xt+5R01yJUTa7Cgw+VE9b1VQtBKc8jCrSW3BWTB9LHQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHANBt+0gd2BsTFxUw8DGSnh+dEXJXeRFLKyUg=KaefHQ35mSw@mail.gmail.com> <202012041133107131056@zte.com.cn> <CAHANBt+Xt+5R01yJUTa7Cgw+VE9b1VQtBKc8jCrSW3BWTB9LHQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 09:04:11 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMMESsweN3dBLzdtOsvLG4z+nPZrywrTo7FmrAWkDmKzCaWpmQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "zhang.zheng" <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>, Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
Cc: "Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)" <mankamis=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, pim@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/SXUxD2kv89GV0-MjJSha5QNh6Cw>
Subject: Re: [pim] Sticky PIM DR, should it be added to PIM DR improvements 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 17:04:18 -0000

On December 4, 2020 at 11:03:22 AM, Stig Venaas wrote:


Stig:

Hi!

> Thoughts? Do you see this differently?

I'm ok with whatever the WG decides, as long as the relationship and
interaction between multiple potential solutions is clear.

This is what I wrote in my review of draft-ietf-pim-dr-improvement-09:

===
(2) As far as I can see draft-mankamana-pim-bdr has not been adopted yet.
    Assuming that is the plan, how would the two mechanisms interact?  Given
    that draft-mankamana-pim-bdr doesn't add options, and §5 says that if no
    options are received then the routers MUST use rfc7761, how does a router
    implementing this specification tell the difference?

    I realize that some of these questions may be better directed at
    draft-mankamana-pim-bdr, but because the WG agreed that a statement
    relating the two should be included in this document [1], then I'm
    asking now.  I would really like to understand what the WG expects.
===

The WG is already aware of both drafts.  Assuming
draft-mankamana-pim-bdr is adopted, I would prefer it if both
solutions are progressed together (one or two documents is ok with
me).

Thanks!

Alvaro.