Re: [pim] draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing wglc

Anish Peter <anish.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 04 September 2019 14:19 UTC

Return-Path: <anish.ietf@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 44DE412001A for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 07:19:49 -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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 z3K_j_xN9LqR for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 07:19:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe36.google.com (mail-vs1-xe36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e36]) (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 F3FD6120019 for <pim@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 07:19:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe36.google.com with SMTP id r17so11036634vso.1 for <pim@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Sep 2019 07:19:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3yP1g+Kd4jue8ZBnMgfA0jdRCq1D0G1JdRFR2MdeZv0=; b=mTz3G7K6c00rpfxLOXcENHIvnDQ8ETHudE6LIU/1JUoZHumb6wt+yf+CbsMiXuhS+q WB0m28xiCFUIiK/MxMOlsXXNXN71cHXu7E+h1KafDtuHyUOdZpJFEPVC/05dxfTMLzaU /vhnV/cFGrPhTDJbgamZ5O1NXDk1/Kx9kZvi12jKkaU6QeOjDVCx2XUizmygsiz0TJ8J O+vu/yxVn0XsAt1qsdTzj4xvATqGNZTpFjRS13v2+yIX146ebQDxmE2oUuR7waOna6pt JRSd0opP3XUOBagTjRUoknSS5+Jv2OvqZa+DGlQEEo0DWB+7yDTlhB6fufmcuLcokjPo xCzQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3yP1g+Kd4jue8ZBnMgfA0jdRCq1D0G1JdRFR2MdeZv0=; b=XmEJkB2U4IUQqZA7bwYdGETW5ctk+9tZnap1V4pzoSMR09nyp793/Eib0hiDcNkEXU K9yQ/Ltaghoep7+0SgYuHLB9Sa48hl/oCrn6nSI3/BAGqT6nUXcHUxgAdOTbqU4FB87n E6V9snhLGG0u6ZBxtFz/IPWhPGD/Dl7xoW6CyyIkbOkx+bnyVVzhxsozN2Ey7pFm25g+ L3sInacPEO/T61Bcyb5eZg5VWdJnu6veNdHhz3m5fwgIV9R3euoH7ngM+K4E1OTBpWI1 TSsl8+hcIkSa1Mjd840qWCzZ2AkHp/rRyK7Ddjodag5U2Lx0zs+ASbFPDKPdglh/Fvb3 xl6A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX1qcj4NNvCs3r7FGYtOPARDkVKqPOXVnSR5S/oZHbSBcOXsyK5 T0Dcxv9CKaHyw/OJ+g4RcP0gNmjtGNVVVNb9ZjI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxtKUPmV0BU1pVGVNK2r0nTY62IHKYmNriDCKhcAu+xSkbHzz2gvpiyVMlLkrDev0KYYaFbr3DhCgmsdGLD+IQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:2083:: with SMTP id g125mr22950210vsg.45.1567606785935; Wed, 04 Sep 2019 07:19:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAL3FGfyC32VB2xw0AM7Btc4UJ-oVGw26sa8ZgmK35QzpHOzESQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL3FGfyC32VB2xw0AM7Btc4UJ-oVGw26sa8ZgmK35QzpHOzESQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Anish Peter <anish.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 19:49:34 +0530
Message-ID: <CAA6qS9rX5uCiDh1NauBfUjCb3mEd-=_PeviHPxehYUPF7oVb4w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike McBride <mmcbride7@gmail.com>
Cc: pim@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009f90610591bae554"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/oE-v43SgAodBymU7ZZ4Pyxunqfw>
Subject: Re: [pim] draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing wglc
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: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 14:19:49 -0000

Hi all,
 Read through the draft. Have a few comments.
1. Section 2: The P bit can be taken as the LSB on the reserved ones. This
would help this get inline with recommendations from
PIM draft-ietf-pim-reserved-bits.
2. Instead of taking two new pim message types, the same pim register and
register stop messages may be used. if this procedure can be followed.
a. RP discovers FHR capable of register bulking from the P bit.
b. When RP responds to this register, it can set set a P bit in R-S
message.
c. Once FHR knows peer has bulking capability it can register packets with
bulking
d. For bulked register messages, RP can respond with bulked R-S messages.
e. Packet format. I suggest overloading existing register and R-S packet
can be done with out using two new packet formats.
Register

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |PIM Ver| Type  |   Reserved    |           Checksum            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |B|N|P|                     Reserved2             |  S-g-count  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   .                     Multicast data packet                     .
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


Register-stop

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |PIM Ver| Type  |  s-g-count  |P|           Checksum            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |             Group Address (Encoded-Group format)              |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |            Source Address (Encoded-Unicast format)            |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

3. Anycast RP


In my opinion, anycast RP procedures must be defined. Protocols
typically should not

ask for any kind of specific configurations or features on its peers.


4. Restart / feature disable

An RP/FHR may restart or may have bullking turned on/off. In these
scenarios the behavior must be defined.


Thanks,

Anish



On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 6:58 AM Mike McBride <mmcbride7@gmail.com> wrote:

> PIMers,
>
> Today begins a two week wglc for draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing
> which was presented at 105 and hasn't changed since April. Please give
> it a read (it's a quick read) and provide feedback to this wg with
> support/no support of it's progressing to iesg.
>
> thanks,
> mike
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing-03
>
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
>