Re: [pim] WG Adoption Call: draft-pim-with-ipv4-prefix-over-ipv6-nh

["Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)" <[e-mail]>]

Support adoption of this draft.

Thanks
Mankamana


From: pim <[e-mail]> on behalf of Michael McBride <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 11:02 AM
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [pim] WG Adoption Call: draft-pim-with-ipv4-prefix-over-ipv6-nh

Hello PIMers,

This begins a call for adoption of draft-pim-with-ipv4-prefix-over-ipv6-nh-01 which was presented in Prague where 4 were for adoption and 0 against. Please respond with your thoughts, either way, on whether we should adopt this draft. The draft notes, from the discussion in Prague, are below.

Thanks,
Mike

Prague meeting notes:

Stig: pim-with-ipv4-prefix-over-ipv6-nh.
Ashutosh gupta is the main author.
Problem statement:
mcast routing needs a RPF tree to be formed in order to receive one copy of mcast data on lowest cost loop free path
in case of PIMv4, it needs a valid PIMv4 neighbor to send PIMv4 join
when using RFC5549, a IPv4 prefix is reachable over IPv6 next hop or vice versa
if rpf interface has more than 1 pimv4 neighbor, then a new pim mechanism is needed to choose corresponding neighbor for IPv6 next hop.
solution: use of secondary address list option in PIM hello
status:
deployed by one cisco customer.
looking for wg adoption
Toerless: is the join for the v4 still an v4 packet?
Stig: yes
Toerless: there is no interest to have a single address family pim adjacency.
Stig: there could be. there is v4 and v6 on the router interfaces.
Toerless: the address extension is in v4 or v6?
stig: there is a hello where the family should be same as interface itself.
Toerless: minimum recommendation is that v4 mapping is the hello option in v6 hello. one other logical next step is what is preferred solution. perhaps just build a v6 port connection. and can still send v4 joins.
Stig: you could send a pim join with v6 destination address that might contact v4 s,gs.
toerless: say prefer doing this in v6.
stig: there is also people trying to deploy v6 only in their core networks. and also deliver v4 payloads
toerless: first step make the control plane v6. and make v4 a service. get rid of native v4 packets is a different problem.
stig: would prefer to have this a separate thing. simple document. to do what you say to use v6 join to ask for v4 join that would make a change to pim spec.
toerless: would love protocol drafts to share best practices. have hello option in v6 pim.
stig: would like some guidance on whether wg should do this.
4 people have read. 4 people think we should adopt. will take to list.
Toerless: most of my comments don't have to go in this draft. maybe in mboned.
Stig as chair: think it would be interesting to look at this in mboned. people that deploy multicast. v4 mcast with v6 signalling. maybe talk to isps.