IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pim] Issues with pim registers

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

Return-Path: <ramaksun@cisco.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 58F9B130DF5 for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 13:09:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 5PlPE4X7RWgj for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 13:09:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6316A12D7F8 for <pim@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 13:09:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; 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-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DWAACLWYRb/4wNJK1aGgEBAQEBAgEBAQEIAQEBAYJXSS9lfxUTCot3jCiYMxSBZgsYAQqESQKDKSE0GAECAQECAQECbRwMhTgCAQMBAWwLEAIBCD8HJwsUEQIEDgWDIQGBHWQPpUiKaAWJVheCAIESJx+CTIMbAQGBLgESAYNRgiYCiBaEc4VSiFEJAo9tF4E/hDKIWJMiAhEUgSQdOGFxcBU7KgGCPosVhT5viiaBH4EcAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.53,296,1531785600"; d="scan'208,217";a="163496020"
Received: from alln-core-7.cisco.com ([173.36.13.140]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Aug 2018 20:09:20 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (xch-rtp-011.cisco.com [64.101.220.151]) by alln-core-7.cisco.com (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 xch-rtp-011.cisco.com (64.101.220.151) by XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (64.101.220.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 16:09:19 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-011.cisco.com ([64.101.220.151]) by XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com ([64.101.220.151]) with mapi id 15.00.1367.000; Mon, 27 Aug 2018 16:09:19 -0400
From: "Ramakrishnan Chokkanathapuram (ramaksun)" <ramaksun@cisco.com>
To: "Vikas Ramesh Kamath (vikkamat)" <vikkamat@cisco.com>
CC: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>, "pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org>, "Raunak Banthia (rbanthia)" <rbanthia@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [pim] Issues with pim registers
Thread-Index: AQHT2OBIeF4wkrG9vEikR1ZD/Ta0OaQTsf8AgMFi9wA=
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2018 20:09:19 +0000
Message-ID: <A6B6D40E-D141-481C-9B72-B7698AC3DC13@cisco.com>
References: <CAHANBt+1=PYBDL-2M+jw4pyH_GGeoEzK1bK7_TcV7CRDbBtUBA@mail.gmail.com> <5E3BA7B3-F180-45B1-9A1D-10A3C9497888@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <5E3BA7B3-F180-45B1-9A1D-10A3C9497888@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.32.198.144]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_A6B6D40ED141481C9B72B7698AC3DC13ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 64.101.220.151, xch-rtp-011.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-7.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/kjkynEsznSYzXp8Mbntwr-IWfwE>
Subject: Re: [pim] Issues with pim registers
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: 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..

Thanks,
Ramki

On Apr 26, 2018, at 11:56 AM, Vikas Ramesh Kamath (vikkamat) <vikkamat@cisco.com<mailto:vikkamat@cisco.com>> wrote:

Hello,

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

Thanks,
Vikas

On 4/20/18, 12:46 PM, "pim on behalf of Stig Venaas" <pim-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:pim-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of stig@venaas.com<mailto:stig@venaas.com>> 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:

    draft-ramki-pim-null-register-packing
    draft-anish-reliable-pim-registers

    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.

    Thanks,
    Stig

    _______________________________________________
    pim mailing list
    pim@ietf.org<mailto:pim@ietf.org>
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim

_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
pim@ietf.org<mailto:pim@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status