Re: [pim] [bess] [Idr] draft-hb-idr-sr-p2mp-policy (3/10 to 3/24/2022) - Adoption call

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

It also needs to be observed that
draft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast-controller has a broader scope and also
covers mLDP functionality what may be extremely useful for networks which
are not green field and would like to transition from current to new
multicast trees.

Having solution in IDR which covers multicast tree setup partially and at
the same time a more complete one which has been already adopted and is
progressing as a WG document is never a good thing.

Besides I am puzzled since when IDR is accepting protocol extensions which
are used to setup multicast distribution trees ?

When the first version of the draft was written (Sep 2017) we went to BESS
with draft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast-controller since that WG is center of
gravity for all VPN/multi-tenant multicast related work.

Kind regards,
Robert


On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 7:39 AM Shraddha Hegde <shraddha=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> WG,
>
>
>
> I agree with Jeffrey that the BESS adopted draft
> draft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast-controller provides
>
> Solution in the same problem space. It is good to discuss the two drafts
> before adopting
>
> draft-hb-idr-sr-p2mp-policy in IDR.
>
>
>
> Rgds
>
> Shraddha
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> *From:* Idr <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of * Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
> *Sent:* Friday, March 25, 2022 8:17 PM
> *To:* Susan Hares <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *Cc:* '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>; 'BESS' <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [Idr] draft-hb-idr-sr-p2mp-policy (3/10 to 3/24/2022) -
> Adoption call
>
>
>
> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>
>
>
> [+ BESS, PIM]
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I realized that in a hurry I did not respond to the specific questions
> below. Please see zzh> next to the questions.
>
>
>
> Looks like that there are some comments on BESS/PIM list and I will go
> through those to see if I have any addition/follow-up on those.
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> *From:* Idr <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
> *Sent:* Friday, March 25, 2022 6:30 AM
> *To:* Susan Hares <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [Idr] draft-hb-idr-sr-p2mp-policy (3/10 to 3/24/2022) -
> Adoption call
>
>
>
> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>
>
>
> I am sorry for responding late. I somehow missed this.
>
>
>
> I think we should discuss the relationship with
> daft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast-controller further before adopting this.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
> Jeffrey
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> *From:* Idr <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Susan Hares
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2022 10:28 AM
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [Idr] draft-hb-idr-sr-p2mp-policy (3/10 to 3/24/2022) -
> Adoption call
>
>
>
> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>
>
>
> IDR WG:
>
>
>
> If you just wish to respond to the IDR list,
>
> you may respond to this email on the adoption call.
>
>
>
> Cheers, Sue
>
>
>
> *From:* Idr [mailto:[e-mail] <[e-mail]>] *On
> Behalf Of *Susan Hares
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2022 9:55 AM
> *To:* [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* [Idr] draft-hb-idr-sr-p2mp-policy (3/10 to 3/24/2022)
>
>
>
> This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for:
>
> draft-hb-idr-sr-p2mp-policy from (3/10 to 3/24/2022)
>
>
>
> You can obtain the draft at:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hb-idr-sr-p2mp-policy/
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hb-idr-sr-p2mp-policy/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!TfiPI1NfecN3db3pj6WZ8paxUr4s6OvmVZ91mapddPFeCkFZJodxFk8aTGCpYg34$>
>
>
>
> In your comments for this call please consider:
>
>
>
> Zzh> I want to point out that
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast-controller/
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast-controller/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VA2RfAmcBA46YljU7KP0svRjk7kWVgXhzfsGzul45PZ5GQ32gWZgaclSIG0DaUH9$>
> is another way to do the same. I also explained in
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KObeSgKPu3HRbd0ZN7L7fWq_Eto/
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KObeSgKPu3HRbd0ZN7L7fWq_Eto/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VA2RfAmcBA46YljU7KP0svRjk7kWVgXhzfsGzul45PZ5GQ32gWZgaclSICdM0D1B$>
> why it was in the bess WG.
>
> Zzh> In addition, the bess draft supports **other** multicast trees (IP,
> mLDP besides SR-P2MP) using a consistent way.
>
>
>
> 1)  Does this technology support the SR P2MP features
>
> that distributes candidate paths which connect
>
> a multicast distribution tree (tree to leaves).
>
>
>
> Zzh> It is one way to use BGP to support that. The bess draft specifies
> another way.
>
>
>
> 2) Is the technology correctly specified for the
>
> NLRI (AFI/SAFI) and the tunnel encapsulation attribute
>
> additions (sections 2 and 3)?
>
>
>
> Zzh> The specified SAFI and tunnel encapsulation attribute additions are
> one way for the BGP signaling for SR-P2MP. The bess draft specifies another
> way.
>
>
>
> 3) Does the P2MP policy operation (section 4)
>
> provide enough information for those implementing this
>
> technology and those deploying the technology?
>
>
>
> 4) Do you think this multicast technology is a good
>
> Place to start for P2MP policy advertisement via BGP?
>
>
>
> Zzh> Both ways are good place to start. We just need to figure out how to
> proceed with the two proposals.
>
>
>
> 5) Do you think this SR P2MP policies should not be advertised
>
> via BGP?
>
>
>
> Zzh> I do think BGP signaling for SR P2MP is appropriate. We just need to
> discuss the two ways and figure out how to proceed. The authors have
> discussed before though we have not reached consensus.
>
> Zzh> Thanks!
>
> Zzh> Jeffrey
>
>
>
> Cheers, Susan Hares
> _______________________________________________
> BESS mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>