Re: [pim] pim-bdr and pim-dr-improvement status

Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> Mon, 28 February 2022 18:01 UTC

Return-Path: <stig@venaas.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 768803A135B for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 10:01:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=venaas-com.20210112.gappssmtp.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 waxT6Pk0X1oK for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 10:01:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io1-xd34.google.com (mail-io1-xd34.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d34]) (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 91B533A12B2 for <pim@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 10:01:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io1-xd34.google.com with SMTP id q8so15650913iod.2 for <pim@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 10:01:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=venaas-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tZxEY4tMXuJ2HKD1kwvW3dN4wGiztIhlVXAulGXtBjI=; b=Jr92GqRfzjDhWyzWO4U63ws3eU0RneoyQ35KYvdRBLUw0rVe+nrGIMY1qGJpd61DDk Hn2XdFYdraWcqFQQDuzFm+Uiz1QSmQ/xJEkJXmbdBis72QGmAH+TdK/2VWmy93Ei7V4P Ca6xVJzYnoibxvP5gAMIS84UznEe2djGRp4Q8jKpgfvEWFU0o8kGqkYaqtrYWNjHp1L5 wc9gqGSpVKKfGh8izXbT1Q+wDoFuXcJ0IM/zT1zdBM6ifpnR/+lt8jr3dE0yZvGP8d2a 9Aae4geaJ7ZuaZ8Wj1vaYobYqgtzJY/Zt33aitEeh7SUbcCqQMYYaf7pgjAshbAXG5/H D6Ag==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tZxEY4tMXuJ2HKD1kwvW3dN4wGiztIhlVXAulGXtBjI=; b=ajmUVB5HbXlTpOk2fxtfNdWl4bcb3Ykcgy0TWqGLCWAiWJh4LLfuMOYn5CaLn/T1ul Cr4mbtEZnXqsq2n95cMUB1A4C/E9seldcVuxb3gSzgNVyV7LkeFWlkzy69fZ11CTgO2X aH8cu4ckY/9TnngPKg0KubDlxPMXPZmPZa6YGatl5Mw9SbQTOlzVE/ORNv3Jib72Ywb9 YGIJPHrLnQlzQD7KWAKoGj8yec3POlw6ZoplIy8ESVCdK/RV00kooOvAAC+41YmhIy2c gO8lPDkmO16xY0ARWlfGN6noCc235ALqIjibe0sreUQwWSiuEPNXa5Ajlw2oGqsDDLoB fzBw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530wD0kLpxFn7xTzk7Zdgr74VE9G7dybv0FRUw1Xs0+dCYL2Iis0 3ftabZdHysE2An678yxz45c7TPQRvZDIRP4gOXIIQw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzefKNwF4ca8GnSbz1QPWTmao2PYBQWddpMDwxyHqyKImbDyX9j3vm9ing9lPwJpj71Gh/vkJuD8c/Uf/v5GgI=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:e009:0:b0:641:59ea:ae67 with SMTP id z9-20020a6be009000000b0064159eaae67mr16029560iog.143.1646071276405; Mon, 28 Feb 2022 10:01:16 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <BYAPR13MB258255D43423ECC92F6AFD57F4359@BYAPR13MB2582.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <etPan.620ce9fd.528800d.546@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <etPan.620ce9fd.528800d.546@gmail.com>
From: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2022 10:01:05 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHANBtJaEsESjTvJeie=PGRvS_oGD3jcvJJZrY14MzYLsMVs3g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: draft-ietf-pim-dr-improvement@ietf.org, "draft-ietf-pim-bdr@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pim-bdr@ietf.org>, Michael McBride <michael.mcbride@futurewei.com>, "pim@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/UGfktZq2fGPntgj1aLv6LKHL1WE>
Subject: Re: [pim] pim-bdr and pim-dr-improvement status
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: Mon, 28 Feb 2022 18:01:21 -0000

Hi all

Here is my take on this. Previously the two drafts were solving
different problems. dr-improvement was focusing on sticky DR, which is
a useful concept. The bdr draft was focusing on backup-DR and did not
address sticky DR at all.

However, the bdr draft now includes a sticky DR solution as well. I
think the main thing we need to figure out now is which sticky DR
solution we think is best, or is there a need for both the solutions?

To make progress on this we should see what the pros and cons are for
each solution and their applicability. Are there certain cases where
only one of the solutions would work, or one has clear advantages? I
certainly hope the authors of the drafts can provide details on this,
but also hope to hear from the rest of the WG. It would be great to
have more discussion before the upcoming meeting. It would also be
great to have presentations and discussion at the meeting itself.
These drafts have been around for a while and we need to make progress
on this.

Regards,
Stig

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:11 AM Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On February 15, 2022 at 11:57:49 PM, Michael McBride wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> > Both drafts are expiring this week and Stig and I were hoping to get a status
> > update and plan soon. Has anyone started a comparison between them? It would
> > be good to decide this year whether both drafts really are needed to progress
> > as separate solutions or whether they should be combined. We are willing to
> > help as needed.
>
> This is part of what I wrote when I returned draft-ietf-pim-dr-improvement to the WG, in Oct/2020 [A].  At the time pim-bdr hadn't been adopted, so I edited that part out.
>
> =====
> Stig/Mike:  I looked at the archive [1] and the minutes [3], and it
> looks (in the minutes) like I said "clearly state why there are two
> different drafts for the same problem and why they aren't combined".
> :-(  The text in ยง5 does mention the difference, but it simply opens
> up more questions...and there is not a clear differentiation of when
> to use one or the other.  At first glance, they just seem to be two
> different solutions for the same problem.
>
> ...
>
> The other question in the minutes is about whether the 2 drafts should
> be merged, or even if that was discussed.  Was it considered?  What
> are the WG expectations when defining two solutions?  Are there really
> different use cases, or is the intent to simply let the market choose?
>  This document is on the Standards Track, but draft-mankamana-pim-bdr
> is marked as Informational -- are those the right statuses to use?
> Should they be Experimental instead?
>
> ...
>
> [1] mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/hWi6rDIbbhcEjEuQ_y3z1o6Wulw
> [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-104-pim/
> =====
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Alvaro.
>
> [A] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/eo-udOxoKXhBiGhOV0zgqyZ8Uzs/
>
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim