Re: [pim] WG Adoption Call: draft-pim-with-ipv4-prefix-over-ipv6-nh

[<[e-mail]>]

Support the adoption of this draft. 



Thanks,

Sandy








原始邮件



发件人： <[e-mail]>
收件人： <[e-mail]>
日 期 ：2017年08月23日 02:02
主 题 ：[pim] WG Adoption Call:  draft-pim-with-ipv4-prefix-over-ipv6-nh







Hello PIMers,


 


This begins a call for adoption of draft-pim-with-ipv4-prefix-over-ipv6-nh-01 which was presented in Prague where 4 were for adoption and 0 against. Please respond with your thoughts, either way, on whether we should adopt this draft. The  draft notes, from the discussion in Prague, are below.


 


Thanks,


Mike


 


Prague meeting notes:


 


Stig: pim-with-ipv4-prefix-over-ipv6-nh.


Ashutosh gupta is the main author.


Problem statement:


mcast routing needs a RPF tree to be formed in order to receive one copy of mcast data on lowest cost loop free path


in case of PIMv4, it needs a valid PIMv4 neighbor to send PIMv4 join


when using RFC5549, a IPv4 prefix is reachable over IPv6 next hop or vice versa


if rpf interface has more than 1 pimv4 neighbor, then a new pim mechanism is needed to choose corresponding neighbor for IPv6 next hop.


solution: use of secondary address list option in PIM hello


status:


deployed by one cisco customer.


looking for wg adoption


Toerless: is the join for the v4 still an v4 packet?


Stig: yes


Toerless: there is no interest to have a single address family pim adjacency.


Stig: there could be. there is v4 and v6 on the router interfaces.


Toerless: the address extension is in v4 or v6?


stig: there is a hello where the family should be same as interface itself.


Toerless: minimum recommendation is that v4 mapping is the hello option in v6 hello. one other logical next step is what is preferred solution. perhaps just build a v6 port connection. and can still send v4 joins.


Stig: you could send a pim join with v6 destination address that might contact v4 s,gs.


toerless: say prefer doing this in v6.


stig: there is also people trying to deploy v6 only in their core networks. and also deliver v4 payloads


toerless: first step make the control plane v6. and make v4 a service. get rid of native v4 packets is a different problem.


stig: would prefer to have this a separate thing. simple document. to do what you say to use v6 join to ask for v4 join that would make a change to pim spec.


toerless: would love protocol drafts to share best practices. have hello option in v6 pim.


stig: would like some guidance on whether wg should do this.


4 people have read. 4 people think we should adopt. will take to list.


Toerless: most of my comments don't have to go in this draft. maybe in mboned.


Stig as chair: think it would be interesting to look at this in mboned. people that deploy multicast. v4 mcast with v6 signalling. maybe talk to isps.