Re: [pim] call for adoption: draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-01

["Wei Zhou (weizho2)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Thank you all for providing comments and the information on
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-pim-drpriority-auto-adjustment-03.

I just read through the draft proposed by xiaohu as I was not aware of
this draft until xiaohu kindly mentioned in the mail list. After carefully
comparing the two drafts, let me try explain the differences between them
(referred as draft-xu-dr-adj and draft-zhou-pim-vrrp):

1. The original problems that two drafts try to solve might look similar
but they are actually quite different in the following way:
draft-xu-dr-adj targets the PIM DR auto-adjustment based on upstream link
tracking, while the idea in draft-zhou-pim-vrrp is to provide a complete
solution to enable multicast to interoperate with first hop redundancy
protocol in response to any interested events: Master routers goes down,
upstream link up/down, bandwidth change and other logical objects that
VRRP could track.

2. The solution proposed in draft-zhou-pim-vrrp is designed as a complete
multicast failover mechanism: in addition to DR priority adjustment, the
new draft addresses other critical problems in providing multicast
redundancy, including Assert metric adjustment, DF election for BiDir
group and tracking multiple VRRP groups.

3. In addition to last-hop and first-hop scenario, the new draft addresses
 transit network scenario to make Master router process PIM J/P for the
virtual address, and how to maintain or rebuild J/P state when switching.

The only similarity between the old and new drafts is to make master
router the DR, which is obvious way to make desired router DR.

Thanks,
Wei






On 5/23/13 2:08 AM, "Prashant Jhingran (pjhingra)" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>Hi Mike,
>
>I agree with Rajiv, both drafts are trying to solve the same
>issue....that too in almost similar way.
>
>-
>Regards,
>Prashant Jhingran
>NOSTG TME - SP Wi-Fi
>
>http://wwwin.cisco.com/ios/tech/mobile/proxyipv6/
>http://wwwin.cisco.com/ios/tech/broadband
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
>Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:06 AM
>To: Mike McBride; Xuxiaohu; [e-mail]; Prashant
>Jhingran (pjhingra); Wei Zhou (weizho2)
>Cc: Stig Venaas; [e-mail]
>Subject: RE: [pim] call for adoption: draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-01
>
>Hi Mike,
>
>It seems that both drafts seem to solve nearly the same problem (multiple
>routers on the multi-access interface and existence of first-hop
>redundancy protocols e.g. VRRP).
>
>Cheers,
>Rajiv
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mike McBride [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:17 AM
>> To: Xuxiaohu; [e-mail]; Rajiv Asati (rajiva);
>> Prashant Jhingran (pjhingra); Wei Zhou (weizho2)
>> Cc: Stig Venaas; Mike McBride; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [pim] call for adoption: draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-01
>> 
>> Folks,
>> 
>> We have this new draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-01 which we are about to adopt
>> into the pim wg. It has been brought to the WGs attention that there
>> is a older draft (draft-xu-pim-drpriority-auto-adjustment-03) which
>> may have some overlap with the new one. That older draft does contain
>> information about VRRP aware PIM which is attributed to Stig in the
>> acknowledgements. If the five of you authors feel that there is some
>> validity that the older draft contains some information being used in
>> the new draft, you may want to acknowledge that in the references or
>> acknowledgements. It appears the drafts are dissimilar enough to not
>> be merged but I may be wrong. Please share your opinions on this so we
>> can establish consensus within the group and move the document along.
>> 
>> If the broader WG participants have an opinion on this please speak up.
>> 
>> thanks,
>> mike
>> 
>> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Xuxiaohu <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > This draft reminds me that there has been a draft
>> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-pim-drpriority-auto-adjustment-03
>> ) three years before which uses almost the same technology to save
>> almost the same problem.
>> >
>> > The following is quoted from the above draft:
>> >
>> >    "In fact, if VRRP is run on the PIM routers and the VRRP has
>>enabled
>> >    the upstream link tracking mechanism, the PIM DR failover mechanism
>> >    could be coupled with the VRRP so as to reuse the upstream link
>> >    tracking mechanism of VRRP. One option is to synchronize the PIM DR
>> >    priority value to the VRRP priority value always. In this way, the
>> >    PIM DR and the VRRP master will always run on an identical router
>>if
>> >    the VRRP Preempt_Mode is set to True. Another option is to make the
>> >    PIM DR and the VRRP master run on an identical router anyway (i.e.,
>> >    regardless whether or not the VRRP Preempt_Mode is True). To
>>achieve
>> >    this goal, the PIM DR priority of the VRRP master router SHOULD
>> >    always be set to a higher fixed value than that of the VRRP slave
>> >    router automatically."
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> > Xiaohu
>> >
>> >> -----邮件原件-----
>> >> 发件人: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 代表
>> Mike
>> >> McBride
>> >> 发送时间: 2013年5月10日 3:48
>> >> 收件人: [e-mail]
>> >> 主题: [pim] call for adoption: draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-01
>> >>
>> >> draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-01 was presented in our most recent pim meeting
>> >> in Orlando. 4 people were in favor of adopting the draft. Zero
>>against.
>> >> Please read the draft (its short) and provide an opinion either way
>> >> by the end of next Friday the 17th.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-01.txt
>> >>
>> >> thanks,
>> >> mike
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> pim mailing list
>> >> [e-mail]
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim