Re: [pim] [bess] [Idr] draft-hb-idr-sr-p2mp-policy (3/10 to 3/24/2022) - Adoption call

Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Tue, 29 March 2022 14:30 UTC

Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@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 8DB7E3A19B3; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 07:30:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 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, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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 YSRZJvqvS1Jw; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 07:30:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-x1035.google.com (mail-pj1-x1035.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1035]) (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 842153A19B1; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 07:30:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1035.google.com with SMTP id h23-20020a17090a051700b001c9c1dd3acbso3046448pjh.3; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 07:30:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+Gzk/2XOikL9eysX1EFPL6XzfJ/XWvrgzesygQXT4S8=; b=iX45pnADfAYeNQCQb1K59y6jWC9y3UAJBHiB9x4hOfSvjAgyznZtbOG9IXm95kDZ33 S6VHVcxfVWW6f4DV6bZcvG7PvpxFubkBqzxTn/jU8+N1TF7i6GzU5HFUskL+tNzbfpgO NCnzErkqjDKS0zJ1esfiSamyn/He0xHjtzXkeNefDfyQfgEyVs0mKJ0wpm13gNfROoCo x/fpLLzCEDgRoYaRDk2+qlJ6WKECfcwaun0wcUTO7S8ASdjIMub5FrKlAklK0rmT4311 cAzk19dGMEOeBLRraqPVNW4FcsVgIepP6KbiKDmUgiJZTVVg9tyS0/FozURUffXBxLKD Crvw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+Gzk/2XOikL9eysX1EFPL6XzfJ/XWvrgzesygQXT4S8=; b=5mtpHqQTyrInqLsMN5ezMX64LpqUOcq6484ghTtwgYg+1YuDD8YZ0a1zQpDEI4LHPw HgSa2Q+Vhda/mku/vZczCLTmljIi4ObWE3MkMH4V8Rfz8KCFEA6rvkdBDV8fdNYUYNR0 k0H7RwmM3zzB6tPVPsxJaogADRJiTPXs0Y6Z75YCqDd14a84MeDn5K82vXmlgbWCY92A 3uwQWtgvoecP/uENOtQPHwzYi/sWee7SaVAVnXk45G/MJn1jlwk3y0OwNiuJQxxZogD7 /EoVn2oL+etJKLphqMe+3QgLhipQuoF/AunWY8Hj2wOqIcOAVAj1WVkV0HMmk76kiNC4 Wzpw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531QnqpYr1jdk02CJ90YTFgD5uU5MfN9/CrCDl4sEzQ4g8AzCr8w JZYxXm/ejm6JkfxeudcoUInHgRh8gC6eudAAnhE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyySQQU0TdDi3BQBuWDmtGCEhbk6uInQZVKWlUUYTUWVesgZYNvwES2Opp6fc68k5e+FwIEBu21DKbPEHalgaY=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:4f41:b0:1c7:928d:196e with SMTP id pj1-20020a17090b4f4100b001c7928d196emr4762172pjb.47.1648564253302; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 07:30:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <011e01d83493$6175b310$24611930$@ndzh.com> <BL0PR05MB56524EE412C4938C8083E3BED41A9@BL0PR05MB5652.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <BL0PR05MB56523E436FBC1353208E9A77D41A9@BL0PR05MB5652.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <PH0PR08MB6581D4F1DE991EA916BAC91B911A9@PH0PR08MB6581.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <BL0PR05MB5652FFCF1DAC42EC14831C50D41D9@BL0PR05MB5652.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BL0PR05MB5652FFCF1DAC42EC14831C50D41D9@BL0PR05MB5652.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 10:30:42 -0400
Message-ID: <CABNhwV1w7dDxFGchJtT9qb6xcjBBygOkvg42GE3ZAtSp9qg55g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: BESS <bess@ietf.org>, "Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, "pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b523be05db5c4605"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/l5VtvnBuxoL5lv66yYMSieOsqPg>
Subject: Re: [pim] [bess] [Idr] draft-hb-idr-sr-p2mp-policy (3/10 to 3/24/2022) - Adoption call
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, 29 Mar 2022 14:31:00 -0000

Dear authors

Can you describe in more detail the relationship and interaction between
the two SR P2MP variants below:

Defines new SAFI for SR P2MP variant
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hb-idr-sr-p2mp-policy-04

Does this draft utilize all the drafts below Tree sid / Replication sid and
SR P2MP MVPN procedures for auto discovery etc.


Defines Tree SID stitching of replication SID SR policy P2MP variant
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-voyer-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-00

Replication SID
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment

Defines new SR P2MP PTA using MVPN procedures
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp


Kind Regards

Gyan


On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 3:39 PM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang=
40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> When it comes to SR-P2MP state downloading, there are three aspects
> involved here:
>
>
>
>    1. NLRI to encode policy information
>    2. NLRI to encode <tree/path/instance, node> identification
>    3. Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute (TEA) that encodes actual
>    replication branches
>
>
>
> The major difference between the two ways is on #3. Indeed, we could not
> reach consensus – there are two ways of encoding the TEA and each has its
> own considerations. The draft-ietf-bess way (even when used for SR-P2MP) is
> aligned with other non-SR multicast trees (IP/mLDP) for a unified approach,
> while draft-hb is aligned to unicast BGP SR policy.
>
>
>
> I want to initiate a discussion and I can understand that WGs may
> eventually choose to allow both ways for #3. Even so, I think we should
> strive for consistent approach at least for #1 and #2 (and for that I am
> not saying that draft-ietf-bess way must be used). For example, use the
> same SAFI and route types for both ways, but use different TEA encoding
> methods.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Jeffrey
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> *From:* Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <hooman.bidgoli@nokia.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, March 25, 2022 11:34 AM
> *To:* Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang@juniper.net>; Susan Hares <
> shares@ndzh.com>; idr@ietf.org
> *Cc:* 'pim@ietf.org' <pim@ietf.org>; 'BESS' <bess@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* RE: [Idr] draft-hb-idr-sr-p2mp-policy (3/10 to 3/24/2022) -
> Adoption call
>
>
>
> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>
>
>
> Hi All
>
>
>
> Zzh> I do think BGP signaling for SR P2MP is appropriate. We just need to
> discuss the two ways and figure out how to proceed. The authors have
> discussed before though we have not reached consensus.
>
>
>
> HB> yes there was discussion and there was no consensus to merge the 2
> drafts as their approach is widely different. The authors of this draft
> have kept the implementation very close to unicast BGP SR Policy for the
> segment list, which simplifies the implementation and deployment of the
> technology. As you said there seems to be two way to download this policy
> and the segment list and we can work on both.
>
> Given the solid support I don’t see why the adoption of this draft should
> be delayed because of these arguments.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Hooman
>
>
>
> *From:* pim <pim-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
> *Sent:* Friday, March 25, 2022 10:47 AM
> *To:* Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>; idr@ietf.org
> *Cc:* 'pim@ietf.org' <pim@ietf.org>; 'BESS' <bess@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [pim] [Idr] draft-hb-idr-sr-p2mp-policy (3/10 to
> 3/24/2022) - Adoption call
>
>
>
> [+ BESS, PIM]
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I realized that in a hurry I did not respond to the specific questions
> below. Please see zzh> next to the questions.
>
>
>
> Looks like that there are some comments on BESS/PIM list and I will go
> through those to see if I have any addition/follow-up on those.
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> *From:* Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
> *Sent:* Friday, March 25, 2022 6:30 AM
> *To:* Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>; idr@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Idr] draft-hb-idr-sr-p2mp-policy (3/10 to 3/24/2022) -
> Adoption call
>
>
>
> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>
>
>
> I am sorry for responding late. I somehow missed this.
>
>
>
> I think we should discuss the relationship with
> daft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast-controller further before adopting this.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
> Jeffrey
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> *From:* Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Susan Hares
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2022 10:28 AM
> *To:* idr@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Idr] draft-hb-idr-sr-p2mp-policy (3/10 to 3/24/2022) -
> Adoption call
>
>
>
> *[External Email. Be cautious of content]*
>
>
>
> IDR WG:
>
>
>
> If you just wish to respond to the IDR list,
>
> you may respond to this email on the adoption call.
>
>
>
> Cheers, Sue
>
>
>
> *From:* Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org <idr-bounces@ietf.org>] *On
> Behalf Of *Susan Hares
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2022 9:55 AM
> *To:* idr@ietf.org; pim@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [Idr] draft-hb-idr-sr-p2mp-policy (3/10 to 3/24/2022)
>
>
>
> This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for:
>
> draft-hb-idr-sr-p2mp-policy from (3/10 to 3/24/2022)
>
>
>
> You can obtain the draft at:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hb-idr-sr-p2mp-policy/
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hb-idr-sr-p2mp-policy/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!TfiPI1NfecN3db3pj6WZ8paxUr4s6OvmVZ91mapddPFeCkFZJodxFk8aTGCpYg34$>
>
>
>
> In your comments for this call please consider:
>
>
>
> Zzh> I want to point out that
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast-controller/
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast-controller/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!S33KKHGKJVywLaE5hTpBZvb2Og_8GrdduTTT-6xmknLUl8Yylk7RNo3lGazDpUZk$>
> is another way to do the same. I also explained in
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KObeSgKPu3HRbd0ZN7L7fWq_Eto/
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KObeSgKPu3HRbd0ZN7L7fWq_Eto/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!S33KKHGKJVywLaE5hTpBZvb2Og_8GrdduTTT-6xmknLUl8Yylk7RNo3lGW1pXg_c$>
> why it was in the bess WG.
>
> Zzh> In addition, the bess draft supports **other** multicast trees (IP,
> mLDP besides SR-P2MP) using a consistent way.
>
>
>
> 1)  Does this technology support the SR P2MP features
>
> that distributes candidate paths which connect
>
> a multicast distribution tree (tree to leaves).
>
>
>
> Zzh> It is one way to use BGP to support that. The bess draft specifies
> another way.
>
>
>
> 2) Is the technology correctly specified for the
>
> NLRI (AFI/SAFI) and the tunnel encapsulation attribute
>
> additions (sections 2 and 3)?
>
>
>
> Zzh> The specified SAFI and tunnel encapsulation attribute additions are
> one way for the BGP signaling for SR-P2MP. The bess draft specifies another
> way.
>
>
>
> 3) Does the P2MP policy operation (section 4)
>
> provide enough information for those implementing this
>
> technology and those deploying the technology?
>
>
>
> 4) Do you think this multicast technology is a good
>
> Place to start for P2MP policy advertisement via BGP?
>
>
>
> Zzh> Both ways are good place to start. We just need to figure out how to
> proceed with the two proposals.
>
>
>
> 5) Do you think this SR P2MP policies should not be advertised
>
> via BGP?
>
>
>
> Zzh> I do think BGP signaling for SR P2MP is appropriate. We just need to
> discuss the two ways and figure out how to proceed. The authors have
> discussed before though we have not reached consensus.
>
> Zzh> Thanks!
>
> Zzh> Jeffrey
>
>
>
> Cheers, Susan Hares
> _______________________________________________
> BESS mailing list
> BESS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
>
-- 

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*



*M 301 502-1347*