Re: [pim] [Bier] PIM light (draft-ietf-pim-light) and PORT (RFC6559)

["Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alvaro

When would a operator wants to use RFC 6559 over datagram PIM? I would imagine the same scenarios would be applicable to PIM Light.

My point is that IMO TCP vs regular PIM is a separate discussion and it might warrant its own informational draft, which I would be happy to initiate.

But I don’t see how this is PIM Light specific.

Thanks
Hooman



From: Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2022 6:04 AM
To: [e-mail]; Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <[e-mail]>; Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [pim] [Bier] PIM light (draft-ietf-pim-light) and PORT (RFC6559)

FWIW, if an implementation choice, I would like to see considerations about when it should be used and when it might not be required (provide additional benefits).

Thanks!

Alvaro.

From: Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
Date: November 9, 2022 at 10:59:11 AM
To: Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
CC: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: [pim] [Bier] PIM light (draft-ietf-pim-light) and PORT (RFC6559)


Hi Toerless

I had a quick read of RFC6559, first read I don't see an issue supporting PIM light for this RFC.

That said I am not in favor of the wording that PIM Light "MUST" be over TCP. I think this is a implementation choice.
PIM light should work over both and it should be a implementation choice.

So I think the wording should be PIM light would work with RFC 6559 as well and it is agnostic to the layer 4 transport

Thanks
Hooman

-----Original Message-----
From: BIER <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Toerless Eckert
Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2022 5:01 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [Bier] PIM light (draft-ietf-pim-light) and PORT (RFC6559)

Repeating here on the list what i said on the mike @IETF115, PIM, also Cc' BIER WG as hopefully a beneficiary of this work (draft-ietf-pim-light).

We really had a lot of reliability problems under reconvergence of PIM with large amounts of stte which are well applicable as a problem to the target use-cases of PIM light, especially with BIER which will allow up to support a lot of state much better. Thousands of PIM joins that under routing reconvergence events have to be buffered as a huge burst and/or vendor specific pacing that reduces convergence performance.

We solved these problems with mLDP and BGP signaling instead of PIM, and we also then solved them for PIM via PIM over TCP (RFC6559).

I would really like to see:

a) The authors/WG check if/what if any issues threre would be to
use PORT with pIM light. I hope/expect none, but if there are,
lets discuss.

b) Include a requirement that PIM light MUST default to use PORT
and MAY support datagram PIM encapsulation.

Aka: i really see no reason to continue to use datagram encap with PIM light, so the "MAY" is really just for unforeseen cases.

Cheers
Toerless

_______________________________________________
BIER mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier

_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim