IETF Logo Mail Archive

[pim] Re: pim wglc for draft-ietf-pim-mofrr-tilfa-03

Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> Tue, 21 May 2024 16:54 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 572A4C1E6422 for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 May 2024 09:54:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=venaas-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7oLPgqleIpGn for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 May 2024 09:54:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x633.google.com (mail-ej1-x633.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::633]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B729C14CEFF for <pim@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 May 2024 09:54:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x633.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a59b178b75bso639723966b.0 for <pim@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 May 2024 09:54:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=venaas-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1716310462; x=1716915262; darn=ietf.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=n0QQTYJIqRsmnElvj8zSbhSMWi0QFAcXhW2qNYX14aI=; b=ZaRsG/bnm5NIEnwv2jRUKcHcUrWozoCuYvEC6K7hsUs/SwxWEJlXfiVanHS6qb1umY UZKbyDnCGdEPYv2ZPckwdr0+wqSJqYUNJpum/A5nMfa8OA01Z5ezfTIdNcBGI+6NuVyo GfDW7t8KFsyNxUj5N8k3ilmsE9WUCt0fNaqwBsNrkkriyOY1xmi/DtKyfnDjC2GFHe8i YEH7A9kFCWhPG4mR7I1uJig/tn3HNNKfu4SU7eZa5KNiw+ogKaCYEycsuHZ/bfLnyVQr Dui7XxGGWqvBfqn98MCoSRd1cfcwXlJjEmiWNpbxjBD8S7H5a/gakoxBPxyT0He/Fw6F Uo3g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1716310462; x=1716915262; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=n0QQTYJIqRsmnElvj8zSbhSMWi0QFAcXhW2qNYX14aI=; b=bm0ErrjWJVw7s5CaPGZaJvbaAPMOMZQYycoGTbl8rTCxF0L29VkBrGzWUHrX0H1/VD Q8BSpeHO/oBUtw2lh0NhZwXRKZBdM8vwb9plGO8hGJ92rSD2b/EwbfU7DDXrqYuWWfEj GDPlSzpXuvNPXiZPBj3n/9Zbj/n98S52PWPPw+A6B55EqC2iES/pNiLiqVzrwBLxruaf wwkX7KGImZxMPKpJah9zcP+YlK1PZ7ZnrGSOVfyRiMqk7n3hLhkCHL7Ha2W+6Rhig6fp 9gUnJjwDKVdnehWh/OPyjbmwH3oFyxflAXV+PS2SQiojU+AUXqLUj2uTAGupFEwZdIPl DrcA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyYJcDkXqms0CUiG6Q7R0v4Mp+RtpWniH88S6F9/BbCVKajnB3Z ptk3hruN+ZYuzdIwE76CesUwlAgsyVsJA13lcDAl+nz2SQ5gc5y3h/K/+J9754WtAPj+4l6ts75 +VDQWgIVd61JDB4Zm8k+im/XP67lOmLvurB9VNA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IECwewD0ZbIShb9KHBSj8vgMJ20CKZbHxsm+cT1+65MD740qtxxF6V7q3jrjHMli6XFTxVVzWfkX63iWPm/5vo=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:6bd8:b0:a59:a977:a157 with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a5a2d6a38f6mr2226671066b.73.1716310461724; Tue, 21 May 2024 09:54:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHANBtL7+mUXheBoQGHBT=1CwewWhUMnfy9dKKTDXLjR7CTOGg@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV2kd5T8XiV6TMvnfRiJnyg=C+0jPCvGz=0CfVs3_bX_AA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABNhwV2kd5T8XiV6TMvnfRiJnyg=C+0jPCvGz=0CfVs3_bX_AA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 09:54:11 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHANBt+OtvtFrxWsEueAJkR2AYcPhCcPPubzyRtsPsAQUFfTzQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID-Hash: 3S3PRWL7SMXLHRYHEMYG74R5RBEAAOZU
X-Message-ID-Hash: 3S3PRWL7SMXLHRYHEMYG74R5RBEAAOZU
X-MailFrom: stig@venaas.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-pim.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [pim] Re: pim wglc for draft-ietf-pim-mofrr-tilfa-03
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <pim.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/XecfukR8CiifIXqdAgM20Qef6GA>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pim>
List-Help: <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:pim-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:pim@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:pim-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:pim-leave@ietf.org>

Hi all

We definitely have enough support to complete the wglc.

Authors, anything that should be changed based on Gyan's comments?

If you post a new version, please update this reference
draft-ietf-rtgwg-segment-routing-ti-lfa-13 to the latest.

Thanks,
Stig

On Thu, May 9, 2024 at 8:14 PM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I support  publication.
>
> I have a few questions about the draft.
>
>
> MoFRR is typically used for mLDP FRR on backup path protection.
>
> TI-LFA is relevant for SR based networks for Local LFA and RLFA protection for unicast flows and in this draft  we are showing that for PIM network that TI-LFA Multicast FRR being relevant.
>
> SR based networks would be stateless and not have PIM enabled and would use SR P2MP policy with Tree SID.
>
> Would this draft be relevant for SR P2MP Policy with Tree SID?
>
> AFAIK since TI-LFA mechanism is being used for both unicast and multicast FRR protection for SR P2MP Policy head end node with intermediate P nodes using Mo-TILFA, I would think we can drop the MoFRR and call it multicast FRR.
>
> AFAIK since we are talking PIM network in the draft and not PIM free core, are we  referring to scenario with RFC 6037 MDT SAFI for MVPN RFC 6514 PTA 3-SSM, 4-SM, 5-BIDIR.
>
> It’s possible we can have mLDP enabled or even SR in parallel overlays which is typical operator scenario that SR is used for unicast and in cases where operator does not choose to use SR P2MP Policy due to scale issue and wants to keep mLDP for multicast and uses MoFRR for backup path failover and utilizes RFC 7473 SAC selective mLDP label advertisement for multicast labels only so that LDP labels are not advertised for unicast.  In this scenario MoFRR is used with mLDP which is the problem statement.  But this would be for pim free core and in the use case described is a RFC 6037 pim core. In this scenario multicast would be over mLDP and not SR network.  So here MoFRR-TILFA would not apply.
>
> Thanks
>
> Gyan
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 2:16 PM Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear wg
>>
>> Today begins a two week wglc for
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-mofrr-tilfa/
>>
>> In Brisbane we had 5 saying it was ready, and none against.
>>
>> Please respond with any comments you may have on the draft, whether
>> you think it's ready or not, and any review comments you may have by
>> May 8th.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Stig
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> pim mailing list
>> pim@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status