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

Hi Wei,

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Wei Zhou (weizho2) [mailto:weizho2@cisco.com]
> 发送时间: 2013年6月1日 2:56
> 收件人: Mike McBride; Prashant Jhingran (pjhingra)
> 抄送: Rajiv Asati (rajiva); Xuxiaohu; sganesan@extremenetworks.com; Stig
> Venaas; pim@ietf.org
> 主题: Re: [pim] call for adoption: draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-01
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thank you all for the comments and thoughts. I believe that the old draft
> is about upstream link failures, which is not what the new draft is about.
> The new draft is about how to support PIM and VRRP in general instead of
> focusing on the object being tracked.

If your draft is irrelevant to upstream link failure scenario, what's the motivation for making the PIM DR and the VRRP master always run on the same router? In other words, what's the problem when the PIM DR doesn't run on the VRRP master router? It seems that the below text quoted from your draft doesn't really state the FINAL problem. IMHO, it doesn't matter whether or not the multicast traffic is forwarded by the VRRP master router. In addition, "to ensure that the PIM DR is always able to forward PIM Join/Prune message towards RP or FHR", it doesn't require the PIM DR runs on the VRRP master router either.

===============================
  "PIM has no inherent redundancy capabilities and its operation is
   completely independent of VRRP group states.  As a result, IP
   multicast traffic is forwarded not necessarily by the same device as
   is elected by VRRP.  The VRRP Aware PIM feature provides consistent
   IP multicast forwarding in a redundant network with virtual routing
   groups enabled.

   In a multi-access segment (such as LAN), PIM designated router (DR)
   election is unaware of the redundancy configuration, and the elected
   DR and VRRP master router (MR) may not be the same router.  In order
   to ensure that the PIM DR is always able to forward PIM Join/Prune
   message towards RP or FHR, the VRRP MR becomes the PIM DR (if there
   is only one VRRP group)...."
===============================

Best regards,
Xiaohu

> If the WG think the upstream link failure scenario should be discussed in
> detail in the new draft, then I'm completely fine with merging. Moreover,
> if the new draft is adopted in its current shape, then the WG can always
> decide to include the upstream link failure scenario later.
> 
> Thanks,
> Wei
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/31/13 12:06 AM, "Mike McBride" <mmcbride7@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >Thank you for the responses.
> >
> >Some feel the two drafts are completely unrelated while others feel
> >they are completely related. In either case, are you, who feel they
> >are related, saying you oppose the adoption of draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-01?
> >We can infer that is the case but I haven't heard explicitly stated
> >opposition to adoption. We now have several choices for
> >draft-zhou-pim-vrrp, let me try boiling it down to 3:
> >
> >1. adopt draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-01 as is
> >2. adopt draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-01 only after
> >draft-xu-pim-drpriority-auto-adjustment is referenced.
> >3. merge the drafts
> >
> >In either case the authors should revive the expired
> >draft-xu-pim-drpriority-auto-adjustment-03 for consideration within
> >the wg irregardless of vrrp-01 adoption outcome.
> >
> >What say ye?
> >
> >mike
> >
> >On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Prashant Jhingran (pjhingra)
> ><pjhingra@cisco.com> 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; sganesan@extremenetworks.com; Prashant
> >>Jhingran (pjhingra); Wei Zhou (weizho2)
> >> Cc: Stig Venaas; pim@ietf.org
> >> 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:mmcbride7@gmail.com]
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:17 AM
> >>> To: Xuxiaohu; sganesan@extremenetworks.com; Rajiv Asati (rajiva);
> >>> Prashant Jhingran (pjhingra); Wei Zhou (weizho2)
> >>> Cc: Stig Venaas; Mike McBride; pim@ietf.org
> >>> 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 <xuxiaohu@huawei.com>
> 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: pim-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pim-bounces@ietf.org] 代表
> >>> Mike
> >>> >> McBride
> >>> >> 发送时间: 2013年5月10日 3:48
> >>> >> 收件人: pim@ietf.org
> >>> >> 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
> >>> >> pim@ietf.org
> >>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim