Re: [pim] pim-bdr and pim-dr-improvement status
zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn Wed, 16 February 2022 09:29 UTC
Return-Path: <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
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 1467B3A0DA0; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 01:29:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CTE_8BIT_MISMATCH=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T1wMkWggzL3Z; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 01:29:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.216.63.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3576F3A0E0A; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 01:29:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.239]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4JzCMZ5wlPz8PxDM; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 17:29:14 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp05.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.204]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 21G9T6wB080413; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 17:29:06 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp01[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 17:29:06 +0800 (CST)
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 17:29:06 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2af9620cc3e2bfe8b55b
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202202161729062496611@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR13MB258255D43423ECC92F6AFD57F4359@BYAPR13MB2582.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
References: BYAPR13MB258255D43423ECC92F6AFD57F4359@BYAPR13MB2582.namprd13.prod.outlook.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn
To: michael.mcbride@futurewei.com
Cc: draft-ietf-pim-dr-improvement@ietf.o, draft-ietf-pim-bdr@ietf.org, pim@ietf.org, mankamis@cisco.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 21G9T6wB080413
X-Fangmail-Gw-Spam-Type: 0
X-FangMail-Miltered: at cgslv5.04-192.168.250.137.novalocal with ID 620CC3EA.000 by FangMail milter!
X-FangMail-Envelope: 1645003754/4JzCMZ5wlPz8PxDM/620CC3EA.000/10.30.14.239/[10.30.14.239]/mse-fl2.zte.com.cn/<zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 620CC3EA.000/4JzCMZ5wlPz8PxDM
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/dbzhj5eTggHSNqXhxy7rVD1aTKE>
Subject: Re: [pim] pim-bdr and pim-dr-improvement status
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <pim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pim/>
List-Post: <mailto:pim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 09:29:31 -0000
Hi Mike, Thank you for your reminder! Will update the PIM DR Improvement draft with co-author as soon as possible. There is much difference between the two solutions, detailed comparison in the mailing list or meeting will be provided. Thanks, Sandy ------------------原始邮件------------------ 发件人:MichaelMcBride 收件人:draft-ietf-pim-dr-improvement@ietf.org;draft-ietf-pim-bdr@ietf.org; 抄送人:pim@ietf.org; 日 期 :2022年02月16日 12:58 主 题 :[pim] pim-bdr and pim-dr-improvement status Hello authors of pim-bdr and pim-dr-improvement, Both drafts are expiring this week and Stig and I were hoping to get a status update and plan soon. Has anyone started a comparison between them? It would be good to decide this year whether both drafts really are needed to progress as separate solutions or whether they should be combined. We are willing to help as needed. Thanks, mike -----Original Message----- From: pim <pim-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Michael McBride Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2021 11:37 AM To: pim@ietf.org Subject: Re: [pim] mankamana-pim-bdr adoption call. Was: RE: Sticky PIM DR, should it be added to PIM DR improvements or different draft Howdy, Stig and I feel we have consensus to adopt this draft. Thank you for the responses. Authors please submit a new draft-ietf-pim version and let's plan to discuss at 111. mike -----Original Message----- From: pim <pim-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Michael McBride Sent: Monday, June 28, 2021 3:13 PM To: pim@ietf.org Subject: Re: [pim] mankamana-pim-bdr adoption call. Was: RE: Sticky PIM DR, should it be added to PIM DR improvements or different draft Hello again, It's been a week with no response to this adoption call. We will give it another week and if still no response we won't adopt at this time. thanks, mike -----Original Message----- From: pim <pim-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Michael McBride Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 6:11 PM To: pim@ietf.org Subject: [pim] mankamana-pim-bdr adoption call. Was: RE: Sticky PIM DR, should it be added to PIM DR improvements or different draft Hello all, We are picking back up on this thread and using it as a call for adoption. During IETF 110 we had 9 in favor and 2 against adoption. Please read the draft: https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-mankamana-pim-bdr%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cmichael.mcbride%40futurewei.com%7C78e71bb8473b4dc0b3ea08d941764114%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637612798428177836%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=3FhZ6DWqj0M%2BcIYTUcGpIlPBR%2Fsmv9EwvaCtMLeJgyc%3D&reserved=0 and indicate if you support adoption. If you don't support adoption please indicate whether you would support merging with draft-ietf-pim-dr-improvement or have other suggestions. The minutes are included below to show the options with progressing this draft. thanks, mike draft-mankamana-pim-bdr - Mankamana Lenny - this concept of priority and preemption is not unique to pim: vrrp, rsvp with backup paths, etc. can we leverage from those? Was it protocol level stuff or vendor implementations, those could be good examples. leave it up to implementations? Alvaro - what has me confused is talking about two solutions that are basically the same thing. A good argument has been made on how the previous draft isn't needed. It would be nice if all the solutions was considered in one draft. We seem to be circuling around implementations, first resolve if we want single or multiple solutions. And then understand how they interact. Stig - I agree. We initially only had one sticky DR in other draft, now we have two proposals. Do we actually need two solutions? Are there different use cases where one is better then the other? Alvaro - I'm not advocating for one or two, the wg to decide. maybe we define multiple use cases. Needs more coordination. Stig - if the wg decides we only need one solution that covers all the use cases we probably only want to publish one of them. Mike - some may want to have a hello option and others may not. And right now we only have one wg document. Let's say we do adopt this draft, should we hold off on progressing both documents until they are both progressed together? Alvaro - That would be nice. they are not dependent on each other. they don't have to progress together. progressing close would be nice. Stig - we shouldn't progress any document until we carefully decide what solution is best or if we want both solutions. Lets compare both options. Mike - let's poll for adoption. Stig - just because we adopt both documents doesn't mean we publish both documents. Poll - 9 in favor and 2 against. Will take to the list. -----Original Message----- From: pim <pim-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2021 11:29 AM To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>; zhang.zheng <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>; Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> Cc: Sridhar Santhanam (sridsant) <sridsant@cisco.com>; pim@ietf.org Subject: Re: [pim] Sticky PIM DR, should it be added to PIM DR improvements or different draft Thanks every one for input. So I would update Sticky PIM DR without capability option in draft-mankamana-pim-bdr. Will ask for adoption in coming IETF. Mankamana On 12/4/20, 9:04 AM, "Alvaro Retana" <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: On December 4, 2020 at 11:03:22 AM, Stig Venaas wrote: Stig: Hi! > Thoughts? Do you see this differently? I'm ok with whatever the WG decides, as long as the relationship and interaction between multiple potential solutions is clear. This is what I wrote in my review of draft-ietf-pim-dr-improvement-09: === (2) As far as I can see draft-mankamana-pim-bdr has not been adopted yet. Assuming that is the plan, how would the two mechanisms interact? Given that draft-mankamana-pim-bdr doesn't add options, and §5 says that if no options are received then the routers MUST use rfc7761, how does a router implementing this specification tell the difference? I realize that some of these questions may be better directed at draft-mankamana-pim-bdr, but because the WG agreed that a statement relating the two should be included in this document [1], then I'm asking now. I would really like to understand what the WG expects. === The WG is already aware of both drafts. Assuming draft-mankamana-pim-bdr is adopted, I would prefer it if both solutions are progressed together (one or two documents is ok with me). Thanks! Alvaro. _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@ietf.org https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpim&data=04%7C01%7Cmichael.mcbride%40futurewei.com%7C78e71bb8473b4dc0b3ea08d941764114%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637612798428177836%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=GXirkcnys6MXCsYZQCDCMVkqTIv49dKPSOLMMMDuqT4%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@ietf.org https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpim&data=04%7C01%7Cmichael.mcbride%40futurewei.com%7C78e71bb8473b4dc0b3ea08d941764114%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637612798428187826%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=OnyNVjzLNwMCS6DDLGF%2B79PmqOkEpoI%2BvSu4o1gX7so%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@ietf.org https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpim&data=04%7C01%7Cmichael.mcbride%40futurewei.com%7C78e71bb8473b4dc0b3ea08d941764114%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637612798428187826%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=OnyNVjzLNwMCS6DDLGF%2B79PmqOkEpoI%2BvSu4o1gX7so%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@ietf.org https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpim&data=04%7C01%7Cmichael.mcbride%40futurewei.com%7C78e71bb8473b4dc0b3ea08d941764114%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637612798428187826%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=OnyNVjzLNwMCS6DDLGF%2B79PmqOkEpoI%2BvSu4o1gX7so%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ pim mailing list pim@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
- [pim] pim-bdr and pim-dr-improvement status Michael McBride
- Re: [pim] pim-bdr and pim-dr-improvement status Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)
- Re: [pim] pim-bdr and pim-dr-improvement status zhang.zheng
- Re: [pim] pim-bdr and pim-dr-improvement status Alvaro Retana
- Re: [pim] pim-bdr and pim-dr-improvement status Stig Venaas
- Re: [pim] pim-bdr and pim-dr-improvement status Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)