Re: [pim] Call for adoption: draft-voyer-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-00

Gyan,

>This draft documents the data plane aspects of instantiation of P2MP trees for ASM and SSM or MP2MP for PIM Birdir over SR-MPLS via centralized PCE controller. Does this model support distributed and hybrid models of tree instantiation.  That is not >mentioned in the draft.  Please point out where mentioned if it is so.  If this draft does not support hybrid or distributed instantiation please explain why.

This draft do not cover distributed tree building protocols since
these are already specified for both IP and MPLS.

>The document mentions SR but does not state SR-MPLS.  There are two flavors of SR via SR-MPLS reusing MPLS dataplane or SRv6 using IPv6 dataplane.
>I am guessing SRv6 MDT instantiation is out of scope of this document which should be mentioned

Trees using SRv6 data plane can also be instantiated using SR-PCE,
similar to SR-MPLS. This would be added in future revision of the doc.

>Does this draft use reuse the MVPN procedures defined in RFC 6513 and 6514 instantiation of UI-PMSI MI-PMSI inclusive Default MDT and S-PMSI selective Data MDT.  In the draft I don’t see mention of reuse of the BGP MVPN procedures.

This draft is just for tree instantiation.
draft-parekh-bess-mvpn-sr-p2mp-01 documents use of such trees for
MVPN.

>This document does not talk about fast reroute of MDT in the context of SR-MPLS SR-TE

There is a brief mention of FRR in Section 4.4.1

Thanks,

-Rishabh

On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 3:18 PM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Authors
>
> I support but do have a few comments and questions on the draft below.
>
> This draft documents the data plane aspects of instantiation of P2MP trees for ASM and SSM or MP2MP for PIM Birdir over SR-MPLS via centralized PCE controller. Does this model support distributed and hybrid models of tree instantiation.  That is not mentioned in the draft.  Please point out where mentioned if it is so.  If this draft does not support hybrid or distributed instantiation please explain why.
>
> The document mentions SR but does not state SR-MPLS.  There are two flavors of SR via SR-MPLS reusing MPLS dataplane or SRv6 using IPv6 dataplane.
>
> I am guessing SRv6 MDT instantiation is out of scope of this document which should be mentioned.
>
> Does this draft use reuse the MVPN procedures defined in RFC 6513 and 6514 instantiation of UI-PMSI MI-PMSI inclusive Default MDT and S-PMSI selective Data MDT.  In the draft I don’t see mention of reuse of the BGP MVPN procedures.
>
> This document does not talk about fast reroute of MDT in the context of SR-MPLS SR-TE.
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Gyan
>
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 6:03 PM Mehta, Dhaval (Nokia - US/Mountain View) <dhaval.mehta@nokia.com> wrote:
>>
>> I support.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Dhaval
>>
>>
>>
>> From: pim <pim-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Michael McBride
>> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 4:25 PM
>> To: pim@ietf.org
>> Subject: [pim] Call for adoption: draft-voyer-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-00
>>
>>
>>
>> Happy New Year PIMers,
>>
>>
>>
>> Today begins a two week call for adoption of draft-voyer-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-00 involving p2mp tree construction in a segment routing domain.
>>
>>
>>
>> This draft has been presented in our face to face meetings, including most recently in Singapore, and the authors have asked for a call for adoption.
>>
>>
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-voyer-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-00
>>
>>
>>
>> Please read the draft and let the wg know if you think it’s ready, or not, for adoption.
>>
>>
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> mike
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> pim mailing list
>> pim@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
>
> --
>
> Gyan  Mishra
>
> Network Engineering & Technology
>
> Verizon
>
> Silver Spring, MD 20904
>
> Phone: 301 502-1347
>
> Email: gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim