Re: [pim] draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case WGLC

Hi Stig,
thank you for your comments and suggestions. We'll work on them and will
propose updates addressing your comments later this week.

Regards,
Greg

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 11:33 AM Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> Apologies for being a bit behind the deadline, I have a few WGLC comments.
>
> I believe the document is nearly ready for publication. I just have a
> few minor comments that I think should be considered. Although my
> comments may seem lengthy, I think it might just be a matter of adding
> a few sentences.
>
> In the intro where p2p BFD is mentioned, I think it would be good to
> mention that there are PIM-SM implementations making use of p2p BFD,
> and then maybe point out why p2mp BFD is better suited for this. I see
> you mention that p2mp BFD precisely characterizes the pim deployment
> scenario, and I agree with that, but maybe could add more details why
> p2mp is better. I think this is important as it will indicate why
> existing pim BFD implementations should move to p2mp BFD.
>
> Typo here:
> p2mp: Pont-to-Multipoint
>
> A few comments on section 3.1.
>
> I imagine there could be some confusion whether the BFD TLV applies to
> regular BFD or only p2mp BFD. Can you clarify this?
>
> If I read this correctly, any PIM router can be configured to use p2mp
> and one doesn't need to be BDR or DR to use this. Perhaps it is good
> to add a sentence saying that any PIM-SM router may announce the BFD
> TLV, and other PIM-SM routers MAY monitor it. Basically, even though
> the section name is about DR/BDR monitoring, it can also be used to
> monitor other neighbors. I think it is good to include this, as this
> is done by BFD implementations today. I can imagine that there will be
> other use-cases now or in the future, for monitoring neighbors that
> are not DR/BDR.
>
> Security considerations:
> Is it worth stating how this relates to PIM authentication? If PIM-SM
> is configured to require neighbors to be authenticated, then this
> would only apply to authenticated neighbors. It looks like p2mp BFD
> also has its own authentication mechanism? Should that be considered
> used for PIM? Is there value in doing that if PIM authentication is
> used?
>
> Regards,
> Stig
>
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 1:10 PM Michael McBride
> <michael.mcbride@futurewei.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello people of pim,
> >
> >
> >
> > Today begins a two week wglc of
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case-04.
> >
> >
> >
> > Please share your opinions on the readiness of this draft to be sent to
> the iesg.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > mike
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>