Re: [pim] [bess] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-mvpn-05

"Swadesh Agrawal (swaagraw)" <swaagraw@cisco.com> Wed, 21 June 2017 18:22 UTC

Return-Path: <swaagraw@cisco.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 3025012943D; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 11:22:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 SmL3-LRrPon1; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 11:22:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1374412943B; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 11:22:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3104; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1498069358; x=1499278958; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=Pi+ikqhYs0sg1Xgr9iv1IrhtBW2baEbvj47jROmGXMk=; b=N+QfrkhukcQ4F2BU2I/UXDaK7oXUnCiDl/ATIhpjrhr2tmsywaWPb7qi 2tAFLop2pdlFS9zYUicsLcx4YiTtnqciB5YLDoqqAmESyxhmRq20W0y+0 fCHGJQ2JAEZDEGWgn6Hf0eOmPpv4HtH0bDqU0UqPv/ZbzUTHci9LG46ph I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DxAABduEpZ/4oNJK1TChkBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYMrLWKBDQeDZYoZkVyVeIIRIQuFeAIaglw/GAECAQEBAQEBAWsohRgBAQEBAgEBASEROgsQAgEIGAICJgICAiULFRACBAENBYokCBCqToImi2EBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEYBYELhWKBYCuCeYRCKBeCezCCMQWeYgKTYJIOlRABHziBCnQVSRIBhH8XgWZ2iF2BDQEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,370,1493683200"; d="scan'208";a="442026465"
Received: from alln-core-5.cisco.com ([173.36.13.138]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 21 Jun 2017 18:22:37 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-012.cisco.com (xch-rcd-012.cisco.com [173.37.102.22]) by alln-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v5LIMbeX032422 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:22:37 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-012.cisco.com (173.37.102.22) by XCH-RCD-012.cisco.com (173.37.102.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 13:22:36 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-012.cisco.com ([173.37.102.22]) by XCH-RCD-012.cisco.com ([173.37.102.22]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 13:22:36 -0500
From: "Swadesh Agrawal (swaagraw)" <swaagraw@cisco.com>
To: Eric C Rosen <erosen@juniper.net>, Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>, Greg Shepherd <gjshep@gmail.com>
CC: "bier@ietf.org" <bier@ietf.org>, "bess@ietf.org" <bess@ietf.org>, "pim@ietf.org" <pim@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [bess] [pim] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-mvpn-05
Thread-Index: AQHS6qUdGDAnORLd60WY5cKiUvs8zqIvf+SA
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:22:36 +0000
Message-ID: <492F2A90-C3B0-437E-A0CA-420B7E89883C@cisco.com>
References: <CABFReBoN6YbJr+fqigLuWBStUS2-4rfHuVKONSJdNU4RRK9qaw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHANBtL5s9+vh8qzc8dBuYP3YbQMV6znfpoPqb+NKj8BJT=QYA@mail.gmail.com> <d711f2a8-df72-246a-9105-d1944679cc56@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <d711f2a8-df72-246a-9105-d1944679cc56@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.22.0.170515
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.32.198.22]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <691129BDE0F6BA41BD4B166B2F574C59@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/xFd2FMpNRqaQebYnjz7T2gqscy0>
Subject: Re: [pim] [bess] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-mvpn-05
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 21 Jun 2017 18:22:40 -0000

It can be achieved by having ipv6 explicit NULL in data path. We may not need different label to identify AFI.

Regards
Swadesh

On 6/21/17, 8:39 AM, "BESS on behalf of Eric C Rosen" <bess-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of erosen@juniper.net> wrote:

    Stig, thanks for your comments.+
    
    On 6/19/2017 5:47 PM, Stig Venaas wrote:
    > Hi
    >
    > I think this draft is mostly ready. I just have a couple of comments.
    >
    > In section 1:
    >     This revision of the document does not specify the procedures
    >     necessary to support MVPN customers that are using BIDIR-PIM.  Those
    >     procedures will be added in a future revision.
    >
    > Remove this text?
    
    We'll probably just change this to something like "Procedures to support 
    MVPN customers that are using BIDIR-PIM are outside the scope of this 
    document".
    
    > Section 2.1.  MPLS Label
    >
    > Should one use different labels to distinguish address families in the same VRF?
    
    Nice catch.  The customer's address family is identified by the AFI of 
    the MCAST-VPN routes.  There should be a requirement that a given router 
    MUST NOT originate two x-PMSI A-D routes with different AFIs but with 
    the same upstream-assigned label in their respective PTAs.
    
    > The PTA must be present in Leaf A-D routes so one can know the BIER
    > prefix of the router joining. It might be obvious, but I think it is
    > worth pointing it out. It is specified for IR (in RFC 7988 section
    > 4.1.1 it says: "Leaf A-D route MUST also contain a PTA"...
    
    For IR, the PTA is needed because each egress PE needs to advertise a 
    downstream-assigned label.
    
    For BIER, I was thinking that the BFR-Prefix of the egress PE should 
    appear in the "originating router's IP address" field of the Leaf A-D 
    NLRI.  However, it is probably better to allow the "originating router's 
    IP address" to be different than the BFR-Prefix, and in that case to use 
    the Leaf A-D route's PTA to specify the BFR-Prefix.
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    BESS mailing list
    BESS@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess