Re: [pim] mankamana-pim-bdr adoption call. Was: RE: Sticky PIM DR, should it be added to PIM DR improvements or different draft

Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Tue, 29 June 2021 01:10 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 207E63A1E75 for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 18:10:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 zA4g4A5q-MSf for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 18:10:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-x102d.google.com (mail-pj1-x102d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102d]) (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 265873A1E70 for <pim@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 18:10:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-x102d.google.com with SMTP id pf4-20020a17090b1d84b029016f6699c3f2so794539pjb.0 for <pim@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 18:10:14 -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=LRK+Epl1dgt/SqtGV33nGLnY0yfRFAqh9x7b82nh+1E=; b=NVas1aIE087tFuCOq6ty5voKE2CGaNCM3j33C5sjZXzWxHEy7VjeF7nrQCQc4p+Tlb UzhbLpg6CZekayyC5ockXo82fuJBDg9+lyj9w5AGR954I99ANClvT9wuabyJ3jLVnADq 9dMIymYlOb3BmEdwQTHYcU3z7S4c8pZ/Nv+qh/8V/mRoq3IHwH0QB0ZxpwJCSaGZKSG6 xKupgXvSeSR4XJqIDjbFjqpsh3zpBEuAYE6DPflscaQHyT0l0GRtR/WZTbWkhXmAK0Hy ssPua9iucC9noO9JETq3e/ETyi0vzBjk1xHBVjzoogf/9PHvnRUBoH42KZoMivRcGvbd 4l/w==
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=LRK+Epl1dgt/SqtGV33nGLnY0yfRFAqh9x7b82nh+1E=; b=ZHVzkjYv69yk/IA4loDp0lc7u5cnFCNHTfVAuLroDosCMd9chSJGF+Jd9lAoHXIMaK i0k6kBIGsm5XQb5JpQgqqyPIux8g2vL+EzyNcHXHJdv+CiWXDYNlL9PuP82Nj9xjyGbS 2N2Bh8DcFHMqjdT0x8Uo354a3KLbx5Mt8Hu648Ho6zgRJrdfq0ruSDK1OMzHZRhC2C3S wF5YW2VB5Xf/iXNLaw02T5wJ3gZCOsYkIxFb+LpmODZVdD5gjNKlAIe9JM5VJ+Ehfjot H4AYP34FVkndOsB7nj0wITKeQidsH+mGkWJ17rqnUEQ+Glnv7NzhXj+1XysMsYdFeM0Q B0Rw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530J0wrFYi9s6pF81Nlg5vWvK1VCkukuv0C3EabSiKwRY48a1sxW VEPgaHiOTnfK0G+0Hu7G1qNH3UuCyi84bdNhlAfpJPhXwj8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxiNjw0gv/OQmL2UMtL7LyxhGC7QfCqmq9FXzozZS5A1w052LndwWpyGbCMRz4FNgsuka+9gGPDaZmAqn49fhc=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:4592:: with SMTP id v18mr30584292pjg.132.1624929011968; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 18:10:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <BYAPR13MB258234EAE2EBD4D910D89A81D0099@BYAPR13MB2582.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <BYAPR13MB2582C023AA4EF23A1C27F199F4039@BYAPR13MB2582.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <BYAPR11MB27252CE4BC69965007E2DC1FDF039@BYAPR11MB2725.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR11MB27252CE4BC69965007E2DC1FDF039@BYAPR11MB2725.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 21:10:01 -0400
Message-ID: <CABNhwV163-8d6U3GNTObUpF47o3Ca8T3AigCwmwdc=OoKQ9YdQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)" <mankamis=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Michael McBride <michael.mcbride@futurewei.com>, "pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008b2ee905c5dd447e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/t4Tl2iy0ObPSSeN6GCCq2sFzO8Q>
Subject: Re: [pim] mankamana-pim-bdr adoption call. Was: RE: Sticky PIM DR, should it be added to PIM DR improvements or different draft
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 Jun 2021 01:10:27 -0000

Hi Mike

I support WG adoption.  I think this draft as well as the sticky DR draft
have their own merits and use cases to improve DR convergence.  They both
should be advanced as they both can be beneficial to operators.

Kind Regards

Gyan

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 7:09 PM Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) <mankamis=
40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> Support the adoption .
>
>
>
> *From: *pim <pim-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Michael McBride <
> michael.mcbride@futurewei.com>
> *Date: *Monday, June 28, 2021 at 3:18 PM
> *To: *pim@ietf.org <pim@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [pim] mankamana-pim-bdr adoption call. Was: RE: Sticky PIM
> DR, should it be added to PIM DR improvements or different draft
>
> Hello again,
>
> It's been a week with no response to this adoption call. We will give it
> another week and if still no response we won't adopt at this time.
>
> thanks,
> mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pim <pim-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Michael McBride
> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 6:11 PM
> To: pim@ietf.org
> Subject: [pim] mankamana-pim-bdr adoption call. Was: RE: Sticky PIM DR,
> should it be added to PIM DR improvements or different draft
>
> Hello all,
>
> We are picking back up on this thread and using it as a call for adoption.
> During IETF 110 we had 9 in favor and 2 against adoption. Please read the
> draft:
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-mankamana-pim-bdr%2F&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cmmcbride%40futurewei.com%7C067e47a1b80941d12e0408d9351aa874%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637599210899942214%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=%2BdhjjMXC5bHiaYai9if7HSE0N%2BRlwdEFubLfz%2FlKODo%3D&amp;reserved=0
> and indicate if you support adoption.
>
> If you don't support adoption please indicate whether you would support
> merging with draft-ietf-pim-dr-improvement or have other suggestions. The
> minutes are included below to show the options with progressing this draft.
>
> thanks,
> mike
>
>
> draft-mankamana-pim-bdr - Mankamana
> Lenny - this concept of priority and preemption is not unique to pim:
> vrrp, rsvp with backup paths, etc. can we leverage from those? Was it
> protocol level stuff or vendor implementations, those could be good
> examples. leave it up to implementations?
> Alvaro - what has me confused is talking about two solutions that are
> basically the same thing. A good argument has been made on how the previous
> draft isn't needed. It would be nice if all the solutions was considered in
> one draft. We seem to be circuling around implementations, first resolve if
> we want single or multiple solutions. And then understand how they interact.
> Stig - I agree. We initially only had one sticky DR in other draft, now we
> have two proposals. Do we actually need two solutions? Are there different
> use cases where one is better then the other?
> Alvaro - I'm not advocating for one or two, the wg to decide. maybe we
> define multiple use cases. Needs more coordination.
> Stig - if the wg decides we only need one solution that covers all the use
> cases we probably only want to publish one of them.
> Mike - some may want to have a hello option and others may not. And right
> now we only have one wg document. Let's say we do adopt this draft, should
> we hold off on progressing both documents until they are both progressed
> together?
> Alvaro - That would be nice. they are not dependent on each other. they
> don't have to progress together. progressing close would be nice.
> Stig - we shouldn't progress any document until we carefully decide what
> solution is best or if we want both solutions. Lets compare both options.
> Mike - let's poll for adoption.
> Stig - just because we adopt both documents doesn't mean we publish both
> documents.
> Poll - 9 in favor and 2 against. Will take to the list.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pim <pim-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)
> Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2021 11:29 AM
> To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>om>; zhang.zheng <
> zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>gt;; Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
> Cc: Sridhar Santhanam (sridsant) <sridsant@cisco.com>om>; pim@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [pim] Sticky PIM DR, should it be added to PIM DR
> improvements or different draft
>
> Thanks every one for input. So I would update Sticky PIM DR without
> capability option in draft-mankamana-pim-bdr. Will ask for adoption in
> coming IETF.
>
> Mankamana
>
> On 12/4/20, 9:04 AM, "Alvaro Retana" <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     On December 4, 2020 at 11:03:22 AM, Stig Venaas wrote:
>
>
>     Stig:
>
>     Hi!
>
>     > Thoughts? Do you see this differently?
>
>     I'm ok with whatever the WG decides, as long as the relationship and
>     interaction between multiple potential solutions is clear.
>
>     This is what I wrote in my review of draft-ietf-pim-dr-improvement-09:
>
>     ===
>     (2) As far as I can see draft-mankamana-pim-bdr has not been adopted
> yet.
>         Assuming that is the plan, how would the two mechanisms interact?
> Given
>         that draft-mankamana-pim-bdr doesn't add options, and §5 says that
> if no
>         options are received then the routers MUST use rfc7761, how does a
> router
>         implementing this specification tell the difference?
>
>         I realize that some of these questions may be better directed at
>         draft-mankamana-pim-bdr, but because the WG agreed that a statement
>         relating the two should be included in this document [1], then I'm
>         asking now.  I would really like to understand what the WG expects.
>     ===
>
>     The WG is already aware of both drafts.  Assuming
>     draft-mankamana-pim-bdr is adopted, I would prefer it if both
>     solutions are progressed together (one or two documents is ok with
>     me).
>
>     Thanks!
>
>     Alvaro.
>
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim@ietf.org
>
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpim&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cmmcbride%40futurewei.com%7C067e47a1b80941d12e0408d9351aa874%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637599210899942214%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=XRbjNZlVlm3isR%2F7NYbb7kOrAvy8Cv8%2BkpG7sDrE38I%3D&amp;reserved=0
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim@ietf.org
>
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpim&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cmmcbride%40futurewei.com%7C067e47a1b80941d12e0408d9351aa874%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637599210899942214%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=XRbjNZlVlm3isR%2F7NYbb7kOrAvy8Cv8%2BkpG7sDrE38I%3D&amp;reserved=0
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
>
-- 

<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*