Re: [pim] Issues with pim registers

"Ramakrishnan Chokkanathapuram (ramaksun)" <> Mon, 27 August 2018 20:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58F9B130DF5 for <>; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 13:09:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5PlPE4X7RWgj for <>; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 13:09:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6316A12D7F8 for <>; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 13:09:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=16919; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1535400561; x=1536610161; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=ZSk8KR9kAWAv4UsiBou9ExyE4sKIBfxYnRPqgupQ7ps=; b=B92j5wqHMr59mK/54wVdM1zD1tiXsR1fL0g58KdTJ99ua6eo6c/+N4uc d3Bc8YvAwLvwBTy1BlxLgws+UhYK6L7IclMQkmlG4uNKfMFu+1d8toIzA o7WhdX2Bc3xb9wM1tMt7nIyz5xYMVf1dua2vz2JkvS9a3adTs2Mf4VUIO 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.53,296,1531785600"; d="scan'208,217";a="163496020"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Aug 2018 20:09:20 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w7RK9KFH000627 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 27 Aug 2018 20:09:20 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 16:09:19 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1367.000; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 16:09:19 -0400
From: "Ramakrishnan Chokkanathapuram (ramaksun)" <>
To: "Vikas Ramesh Kamath (vikkamat)" <>
CC: Stig Venaas <>, "" <>, "Raunak Banthia (rbanthia)" <>
Thread-Topic: [pim] Issues with pim registers
Thread-Index: AQHT2OBIeF4wkrG9vEikR1ZD/Ta0OaQTsf8AgMFi9wA=
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 20:09:19 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_A6B6D40ED141481C9B72B7698AC3DC13ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [pim] Issues with pim registers
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 20:09:24 -0000

Hello All,

The draft draft-ramki-pim-null-register-packing was discussed in the last IETF. Could you all please  post feedback/thoughts on the draft..


On Apr 26, 2018, at 11:56 AM, Vikas Ramesh Kamath (vikkamat) <<>> wrote:


As part of draft-ramki-pim-null-register-packing, we have proposed a new standard for PIM NULL register and register stop messages. The motivation for this draft came from the issues seen in customer environments where the high number of PIM NULL registers were causing traffic drops.

We believe this new packet format will not only solve the above mentioned problem but also will help in optimizing bandwidth in the network by minimizing the number of NULL registers/register stops exchanged in the network. Please let us know your thoughts/feedback on this


On 4/20/18, 12:46 PM, "pim on behalf of Stig Venaas" <<> on behalf of<>> wrote:

    Hi, I'm posting this as a WG chair.

    In the last meeting we had presentations of two drafts proposing
    alternatives or changes to the existing pim register mechanism, but we
    didn't have time to discuss them. The drafts were:


    It would be great if people can provide comments on the drafts. I also
    think it could be a good start if we could have a discussion about
    what problems people are seeing today. What issues motivated the
    authors to propose these drafts, and what issues are other people
    seeing with the current pim register mechanism.

    I believe these mechanisms may also apply to pim anycast-RP, so issues
    with that could also be interesting to consider.

    I'm hoping this email can start some discussion. While I'm suggesting
    discussing pim register issues in particular, any thoughts people have
    would be more than welcome.


    pim mailing list<>

pim mailing list<>