Re: PIM BFD RFC

Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Wed, 16 October 2019 04:10 UTC

Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D8FF120868 for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 21:10:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.496
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.496 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=0.5, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 Z4xwG9RJxMWq for <rtg-bfd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 21:10:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x830.google.com (mail-qt1-x830.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::830]) (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 37B29120866 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 21:10:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x830.google.com with SMTP id o12so34149512qtf.3 for <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 21:10:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:mime-version:subject:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=UrxF6hnQ2MtdWIb+uG0VDr3++E5k8SO6hUX2IXSSahc=; b=DihwtUB12UUyROYkOZHGeA70AoUtCj5ctJO/kOJGXbJoLsylXJuCGXBSOrs7xzPsdv Wqe5uaEFXchVmutwY/4oByBd8ffl0NySumOoPk17CJTgYBGVSNUM+/Tf2jUPeKOacidZ nORzgjS+xNmTRQ5jc3+eSoxfKdTDL8q4+AOWggP/JxV/9XyX2YxxAZu9upZyyi08+PuZ gVMe819AqWDczTpyx7TgLlvadJ04IfXtGSKw6/wFCdzZCY8xx1MOREsp1In3t2Vc7kXQ zHpEj2QsS83fXnJ3zShIDJasoJ1QAIs271h3M0iKPX6sYiMFAi+UrO3qlsKeuaM/5cSe I4uQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:subject:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=UrxF6hnQ2MtdWIb+uG0VDr3++E5k8SO6hUX2IXSSahc=; b=kfMFSq3vK7/yjRa9i0Rfv1UrjYcgTj8yWaPFAsjL1KpXsoabMc1t5TNfKKS8edYCoM 5WkJceUT50h5+8os6WmRG9+s8NEN2AHdgMiMPt/ABN8sQJIDeIKmRblpkH0psfaaJpPd /5KMbZ7PK2BTWyIER+aMcPzsG9oohs1fV8ldD2rwiOe4esCnsln4CyUj+Dlp3SpfxRQ0 0xHCfIN35gZxuy6SnKHhZxg2lFJ6fAQtFBB3LJr8T2ESwObqunX4YnW+8DDEp9Jt/M40 bkj9Vy4Hp7kWR9/GqoIA/YWBUicc3zjPIHtiA8y3A/3cLCZxpz45ZrKyJwP2LhGDf5s0 SvBA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVit9miufDNTjasJgEhxZ4SPCU3ZgbAxCrSy+53K4NSjM7rP4b1 PczQUaML755EIamX+81pdGs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzHMjLyO3Jal7Bkt7lcBnzxCy4ylmkwQ0YTTR30A78s0/cw/PwLPZAeMXY7KQ35YcvHF4LqNw==
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:ecd0:: with SMTP id o16mr41046132qvq.200.1571199026878; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 21:10:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.213] (pool-72-83-194-140.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [72.83.194.140]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g19sm15090704qtb.2.2019.10.15.21.10.26 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 15 Oct 2019 21:10:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
X-Google-Original-From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusaGSM@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-1779279D-CCEA-429A-863D-B5F2AD0B0570
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: PIM BFD RFC
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16G102)
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmXZYTaZWQf0VLBTPKM+ZXEvWEOucGHUeQs9pEb5E3shGg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 00:10:25 -0400
Cc: rtg-bfd WG <rtg-bfd@ietf.org>, xu.benchong@zte.com.cn, mankamis@cisco.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <F8DFF05F-AB75-42B1-8112-7B5E00A86A18@gmail.com>
References: <37FED5C8-F400-4C72-B72E-0552AD398895@gmail.com> <F4C0E27E-A90D-450D-99F1-FD985E9639D8@gmail.com> <CA+RyBmXZYTaZWQf0VLBTPKM+ZXEvWEOucGHUeQs9pEb5E3shGg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/XvI4rnh9mHEZNqaz7BQN3r6hCmE>
X-BeenThere: rtg-bfd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTG Area: Bidirectional Forwarding Detection DT" <rtg-bfd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-bfd/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-bfd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-bfd>, <mailto:rtg-bfd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 04:10:30 -0000

Greg 

+ Mankamana and Benchon 

...from PIM WG & BESS which owns LSM MVPN mLDP / P2MP TE S-PMSI and MI-PMSI.

We were discussing PIM BFD use case on this BFD WG thread  and  RFC 8562 and RFC 8563 covers strictly L3 VPN LSM ( label switched Multicast) LMDT (labeled multicast distribution tree) mLDP / P2MP p-tree S-PMSI ( selective constrained MDT / Cisco data MDT) MI-PMSI(inclusive MDT for all VRFs) and not Ethernet switching LAN based PIM SM BFD.

We have a new draft in the PIM WG PIM DRLB load balancing GDR capability and the draft of hashing of ASM PIM RP hash and ASM and SSM S,G hash load balancing of traffic across both PIM DR/BDR does significantly help with convergence as 50/50 LB split but during failover you still have 50% of the traffic that still has to reconverge and SPT tree MRIB/MFIB state has to rebuild.  


https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pim-drlb-11


So the BFD PIM Draft would register the PIM protocol and in asynchronous mode with echo disabled we can achieve sub millisecond detection time and convergence during failover.

So I do think we need a PIM BFD Draft. 

Since this falls between multiple WG but since BFD related this would be under the BFD WG.

I am part of the BFD WG as well as part of PIM and BESS so I can assist in writing the draft if we are all in agreement that this is needed and can work with Mankamana and Benchon as well in creating the draft.

Gyan

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 12, 2019, at 12:07 AM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Gyan,
> thank you for your interest in this draft. We've described how RFC 8562 BFD for Multipoint Networks can be used to shorten convergence in PIM-SM. The similar scenario discussed in draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover where p2mp BFD is used by tails to detect the failure of the head/root or the multicast tree. If it is required for the head/root to detect a defect of the multicast tree toward a tail, we'll turn to RFC 8563 BFD for Multipoint  Active Tails as in draft-hu-bier-bfd.
> Hope this information would be helpful to you. I always welcome your questions.
> 
> Regards,
> Greg
> 
>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 7:40 PM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Greg 
>> 
>> I saw your draft on PIM BFD use cases but could not find the RFC on PIM BFD.
>> 
>> 
>> https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-mirsky-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case-02.html
>> 
>> Thanks 
>> 
>> Gyan
>> Verizon Communications 
>> Cell-301 502-1347
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Oct 11, 2019, at 9:53 PM, Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> BFD WG
>>> 
>>> Anyone know what the RFC or draft for PIM BFD support.
>>> 
>>> Thank you
>>> 
>>> Gyan 
>>> Verizon Communications 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone