Re: [pim] comments on draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing-09

zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn Thu, 16 September 2021 01:20 UTC

Return-Path: <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
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 58B573A10E4 for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 18:20:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 e5tQjWxvmAe2 for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 18:20:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2FAB3A10E2 for <pim@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Sep 2021 18:20:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.164.217]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id D820BB213FFDE2D2E86B for <pim@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Sep 2021 09:20:13 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.238]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 9971352B9C12A16A46F8; Thu, 16 Sep 2021 09:20:13 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp04.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.203]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 18G1KAaQ010090; Thu, 16 Sep 2021 09:20:10 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp01[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Thu, 16 Sep 2021 09:20:09 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 09:20:09 +0800 (CST)
X-Zmail-TransId: 2af961429bc9e95c5317
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202109160920098465921@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <CAHANBt+vT=tGCrLzQiJ2QhXr07P=mLgzFXj6tk11MaqbrW_Ejg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 202105241051460723178@zte.com.cn, CAHANBt+vT=tGCrLzQiJ2QhXr07P=mLgzFXj6tk11MaqbrW_Ejg@mail.gmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
To: <stig@venaas.com>
Cc: <vkamath@vmware.com>, <ramaksun@cisco.com>, <rbanthia@apstra.com>, <ananygop@cisco.com>, <pim@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 18G1KAaQ010090
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/rYqVfLy6VJSb4SB6oF4oNiR6mWU>
Subject: Re: [pim] =?utf-8?q?comments_on_draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing?= =?utf-8?q?-09?=
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: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 01:20:22 -0000

Hi Stig, authors, 
I read the new version of draft. And my comments in May has been addressed. 
Thanks authors! I support the advancement of this draft. 
Thanks,
Sandy
------------------原始邮件------------------
发件人:StigVenaas
收件人:张征00007940;
抄送人:vkamath@vmware.com;Ramakrishnan Chokkanathapuram (ramaksun);rbanthia@apstra.com;ananygop@cisco.com;pim@ietf.org;
日 期 :2021年09月11日 04:33
主 题 :Re: [pim] comments on draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing-09
Hi Sandy and authors
Thanks a lot for your input Sandy. I don't think there has been any
follow-up by the authors.
Authors, can you please respond to this? It looks like some changes
may be needed, or do you believe the latest version addresses any
concerns?
My understanding is that packing only applies to null-register, while
it makes sense to use the P-bit also in data registers.
Thanks,
Stig
On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 7:52 PM <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn> wrote:
>
> Hi authors,
>
> Thank you for the 09 version update! The version makes more clear about the function.
>
> I have some comments for the new 09 version:
>
> 1. In the combinations 1 in section 5, there is
>
> "As specified in [[RFC7761]], the DR sends PIM Null-Register
>
>           messages towards the RP when a new source is detected."
>
> I noticed that the "Register messages" has been changed to "Null-Register messages". The change seems like to be confusion.
>
> Because "when a new source is detected", the DR sends data-register to the RP other than null-register.
>
> After the RP builds the tree to the DR, RP can set the P-bit in the register-stop message sent to the DR, that is the RP can set the P-bit when it starts to send register-stop to the DR.
>
> So IMO in this sentence, the "PIM Null-Register" may go back to "PIM register".
>
> 2. In case the RP enables the packed capability and works well, but the network manager disables the packed capability in the RP. During the switch, there may be two ways:
>
> One is that the RP can still parse the packed null-register messages, but it sends the register-stop message without P-bit set. Then the DR sends the unpacked null-register to the RP.
>
> The other is that the RP stops to parse the packed null-register messages right now, the DR may not receive the register-stop message with P-bit set/clear from the RP, then the DR may send the new un-packed register message after the timer expired and then receives the register-stop message with P-bit clear from the RP.
>
> I am not sure which one is prefer in this draft. IMO it may be better to add some description about the switch issue.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Sandy
>
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim