Re: [pim] draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case WGLC

Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 24 November 2020 22:30 UTC

Return-Path: <jefftant.ietf@gmail.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 8B4F23A0E4D for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 14:30:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 mK5doS2oh2SU for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 14:30:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pl1-x632.google.com (mail-pl1-x632.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::632]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE4003A0E48 for <pim@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 14:30:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pl1-x632.google.com with SMTP id k5so50161plt.6 for <pim@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 14:30:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version; bh=UiJEIhPEtYJrlioM7eztdccj8JkPsjPG4doiYRmWTyc=; b=poRGty9pddC4rKIf4iSKL81tmastcuuXM+DhITA0Mh8/iTDxGSp+YXZgm7LfiiauEu mN8220YBcJKjxlM5Zr5T0aOFNXIduulF9uGn3zCZkryMdfdBSKccC7LK+qH7fFn6yUpO CoYQBs1YwXnfmm9oNAm2jYi+SjPVfoNpvQbsmbCP0EJ970dwX04qzV7xXIB+IDwhfNtf HplNXaltXc2ZFZ7DECkkuTkwAOu1PrkwA/F5BR9tizJ4xlhXhihlS+KEh4rfNGyaJ2Ww wOkcz2fF0z+Wxz+8EezL116E52K3Nfr57XeK9elUfDup+aEw/GZaopn0qJqwRxTU6LjU vWNA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version; bh=UiJEIhPEtYJrlioM7eztdccj8JkPsjPG4doiYRmWTyc=; b=gucYwcVPeEjOUcbfmsi0EVDFVc28oFdFywQu60SOQ5S2VRR0Axp4dGFIaqnHseNt2N lw6+pCS+UU4ooJtu6LmdPC731s2ClG1+JrE964qJv8iYKZWPSdhGkM2FHdkEQAyvIez3 ygPhkpiixMpe64H6cKCsm1EsXl2XNgbgtAdVcS+7tY4EaKdXHZjolEYRv07q8FubG2n8 ivGn3hnJZcMkTFtnbPR/ezlF1jguj28ZXNxfWC7OaN7An7jopzpeflb2rnQs0iOrKRwh 3/Sa6svdjFXpFj5iH0H/tbRiv/BjTA2EOGbM9dUCplEwgd6dP3QtkH3fSX9Zn1jUEQvx gTrQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532qYSMSDKxRROjyyM9ekpLgO+kYSgDJrOMOqEzmxfxAWse7MiI0 h3SkoavjkUz7/GTFXm0xyGs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw2kRL3saB3O0BYKQ7DtwZNA/FFrl7aU33ogYQ8ztnGTW8nFkhNTwM0SikaT5SA3ieH4LUQdw==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:bb94:b029:d6:edb2:4f41 with SMTP id m20-20020a170902bb94b02900d6edb24f41mr534529pls.3.1606257027324; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 14:30:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.7] (c-73-63-232-212.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [73.63.232.212]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q6sm66464pfu.23.2020.11.24.14.30.25 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 24 Nov 2020 14:30:26 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 14:30:18 -0800
From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Michael McBride <michael.mcbride@futurewei.com>, Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
Cc: "=?utf-8?Q?pim=40ietf.org?=" <pim@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <905116fe-2d50-4ed5-87fc-59c01fd0ce9c@Spark>
In-Reply-To: <CAHANBtLLA0fWVEr0rtyVoCNVVPL9oXxSpvwHZoJTYJvp7y1BEw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BYAPR13MB2582CD7E83E6F1E25A8F4226F4ED0@BYAPR13MB2582.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <CAHANBtLLA0fWVEr0rtyVoCNVVPL9oXxSpvwHZoJTYJvp7y1BEw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Readdle-Message-ID: 905116fe-2d50-4ed5-87fc-59c01fd0ce9c@Spark
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="5fbd8981_1a27709e_14cdc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/jPiJR4gvJ5HSxOWpY5yEMgWj-qY>
Subject: Re: [pim] draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case WGLC
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: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 22:30:30 -0000

Yes/support

Cheers,
Jeff
On Nov 24, 2020, 11:33 AM -0800, Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>om>, wrote:
> Hi
>
> Apologies for being a bit behind the deadline, I have a few WGLC comments.
>
> I believe the document is nearly ready for publication. I just have a
> few minor comments that I think should be considered. Although my
> comments may seem lengthy, I think it might just be a matter of adding
> a few sentences.
>
> In the intro where p2p BFD is mentioned, I think it would be good to
> mention that there are PIM-SM implementations making use of p2p BFD,
> and then maybe point out why p2mp BFD is better suited for this. I see
> you mention that p2mp BFD precisely characterizes the pim deployment
> scenario, and I agree with that, but maybe could add more details why
> p2mp is better. I think this is important as it will indicate why
> existing pim BFD implementations should move to p2mp BFD.
>
> Typo here:
> p2mp: Pont-to-Multipoint
>
> A few comments on section 3.1.
>
> I imagine there could be some confusion whether the BFD TLV applies to
> regular BFD or only p2mp BFD. Can you clarify this?
>
> If I read this correctly, any PIM router can be configured to use p2mp
> and one doesn't need to be BDR or DR to use this. Perhaps it is good
> to add a sentence saying that any PIM-SM router may announce the BFD
> TLV, and other PIM-SM routers MAY monitor it. Basically, even though
> the section name is about DR/BDR monitoring, it can also be used to
> monitor other neighbors. I think it is good to include this, as this
> is done by BFD implementations today. I can imagine that there will be
> other use-cases now or in the future, for monitoring neighbors that
> are not DR/BDR.
>
> Security considerations:
> Is it worth stating how this relates to PIM authentication? If PIM-SM
> is configured to require neighbors to be authenticated, then this
> would only apply to authenticated neighbors. It looks like p2mp BFD
> also has its own authentication mechanism? Should that be considered
> used for PIM? Is there value in doing that if PIM authentication is
> used?
>
> Regards,
> Stig
>
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 1:10 PM Michael McBride
> <michael.mcbride@futurewei.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello people of pim,
> >
> >
> >
> > Today begins a two week wglc of https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case-04.
> >
> >
> >
> > Please share your opinions on the readiness of this draft to be sent to the iesg.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > mike
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > pim mailing list
> > pim@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
>
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim