[pim] New Version Notification for, draft-yong-rtgwg-igp-multicast-arch-00.txt
saeed sami <sami.biz.email@gmail.com> Fri, 27 February 2015 19:18 UTC
Return-Path: <sami.biz.email@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 510861AC3BF for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 11:18:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 Y2Vx4NhjFsod for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 11:18:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qg0-x233.google.com (mail-qg0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::233]) (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 94D901AC3BC for <pim@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 11:18:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qg0-f51.google.com with SMTP id e89so1853271qgf.10 for <pim@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 11:18:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=VmKj7f7aPUq7GcuPikCuVBYxVunbhkDmvPwlffjlGZc=; b=vx3T/57WITc8QKP6BaR1lPBSo9kqgq9p8UN9QZSehdTRc8StJhgRsjrxRlxoo37xBa ppvb+hyrMuQxO/G5/xxfxpFs8uk93KCvwZSbDgUg0Wl2pEmfaWwUW+I0IsbcuRo8d9Vv jAlSBWCz0XQIqPzVh64E8PrL4sJ2TSfEGXRN/E3GWuP1BjFFEbKUPGa5+kilCGRUFan5 zPk9+0ko/Ci22n5NJYWVoO55OPxDnVJJyYXjtzFShg/yNgsDSL1pYJrs0pRr85lINHob YX7L+tG6vpoVIQCfIJGP7lrDe8APWitUTEcrv3LdH/7++DRmqUYK8BDxbdnVJZmK41TL ppJw==
X-Received: by 10.229.99.135 with SMTP id u7mr32281579qcn.4.1425064731839; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 11:18:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.4] ([178.253.50.251]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id s19sm3201687qac.5.2015.02.27.11.18.46 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 27 Feb 2015 11:18:49 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54F0C313.1020901@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 22:48:43 +0330
From: saeed sami <sami.biz.email@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pim@ietf.org, pim-chairs@tools.ietf.org
References: <mailman.176.1424980817.27725.pim@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.176.1424980817.27725.pim@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/wrWEJ-gHpG60bBMUaeYTIokpelU>
Subject: [pim] New Version Notification for, draft-yong-rtgwg-igp-multicast-arch-00.txt
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 19:18:54 -0000
Dear Weiguo and Lucy, Hi. it might be a little late but i just had the privilege of reading your draft. having a unified routing protocol with both unicat and multicats capabilities is great idea which we have talked about it couple of times through email. But the problem with your draft at least to my eyes is the fact that it adds additional process over head with regards to multicast control plain on available routers, due to the fact that each router must run specific algorithm'(s) to calculate and form distribution tree per multicast group . now add this to the states each router Must keep per tree, and we will see lots of resource consumption and waste. If you have read Draft-Sami-Pim-Ng you can see that it is providing the possibility of using underlay unicast infrastructure with regards to the control plain and Source discovery instead of forming RPTs which you are trying to avoid too, and makes it faster in source discovery. one of PIM-NG's key features is that it doesnt need msdp to exchange SA messages and only needs unicast reach ability. so there wont be much calculation over head regarding the control plain and PIM-NG can be considered a hybrid multicast protocol. The RPF check mentioned in the Draft alongside the path selection done by IGP might cause the packets to be Dropped specifically with parallel links between 2 routers and if not configured carefully can cause serious problems. Now regarding the Bidirectional logic and distribution trees, having a default Tree and consequently making all routers to calculate the same tree doesn't seem a good idea, while what operators need is to be able to benefit from redundancy and also will put another process overhead on available routers. i see no advantage over existing BIDIR PIM Now if you allow me i would like to say that Redundancy in Bidirectional logic is what PIM-NG can provide operators. it allows to have redundant Tree Roots per Bidirectional Tree and eventually Redundant Bidirectional Trees per Multicast Group all working together without a problem which is, what is needed the most. also it provides a unique bidirectional multicast group auto sense mechanism which over all makes it that revolutionary protocol suitable for any scenario and specifically DC domains. of course Bidirectional PIM can not be found in current Draft-Sami-Pim-Ng as it is one of its key features among many other features and i was waiting for my provisional patent app number to arrive and so it arrived, and you will see the new Bidir Logic providing redundancy in the new revision for the very first time. I think having a unified routing protocol is great and what is needed the most but not at any cost specifically putting so much process overhead on routers in a network such as a data center. BUT there is a way of having the unified routing protocol everyone is looking for !!! On 02/26/2015 11:30 ب.ظ, pim-request@ietf.org wrote: > Re: New Version Notification for > draft-yong-rtgwg-igp-multicast-arch-00.txt
- [pim] New Version Notification for, draft-yong-rt… saeed sami
- Re: [pim] New Version Notification for, draft-yon… Lucy yong
- Re: [pim] New Version Notification for, draft-yon… Heidi Ou (hou)
- Re: [pim] New Version Notification for, draft-yon… Haoweiguo
- Re: [pim] New Version Notification for, draft-yon… Haoweiguo
- Re: [pim] New Version Notification for, draft-yon… Lucy yong