[RTG-DIR]Re: [MBONED]draft-ietf-mboned-redundant-ingress-failover-07 early Rtgdir review

zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn Mon, 18 August 2025 03:36 UTC

Return-Path: <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A39D553FCD9; Sun, 17 Aug 2025 20:36:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DtvXcFOIl871; Sun, 17 Aug 2025 20:36:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [160.30.148.34]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C14B553FCCF; Sun, 17 Aug 2025 20:35:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.133]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange x25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4c4yzc2sZ7z5PM3h; Mon, 18 Aug 2025 11:35:56 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njy2app08.zte.com.cn ([10.40.13.206]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 57I3ZhAN016037; Mon, 18 Aug 2025 11:35:43 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njb2app06[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Mon, 18 Aug 2025 11:35:44 +0800 (CST)
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2025 11:35:44 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afe68a29f90039-ed7cb
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <20250818113544889ZuG1qiwM5Axr4vKT_Mbfh@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <175468243313.125966.14093225500528775547@dt-datatracker-6f95f9d9c-8g9j6>
References: 175468243313.125966.14093225500528775547@dt-datatracker-6f95f9d9c-8g9j6
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn
To: yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 57I3ZhAN016037
X-TLS: YES
X-SPF-DOMAIN: zte.com.cn
X-ENVELOPE-SENDER: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn
X-SPF: None
X-SOURCE-IP: 10.5.228.133 unknown Mon, 18 Aug 2025 11:35:56 +0800
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 68A29F9C.000/4c4yzc2sZ7z5PM3h
Message-ID-Hash: VOT6GBBJOL6SGB6CQPBEM7OE5ZFZTCVH
X-Message-ID-Hash: VOT6GBBJOL6SGB6CQPBEM7OE5ZFZTCVH
X-MailFrom: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-rtg-dir.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: rtg-dir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mboned-redundant-ingress-failover.all@ietf.org, mboned@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [RTG-DIR]Re: [MBONED]draft-ietf-mboned-redundant-ingress-failover-07 early Rtgdir review
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/5aVD3aiN840lLLeBDS_3NWnA-_M>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:rtg-dir-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:rtg-dir-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:rtg-dir-leave@ietf.org>

Hi Yingzhen,
Thank you very much for your review!
Based on your comments, a new version of 08 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mboned-redundant-ingress-failover/08/)  has been submitted.
Appreciate for your more review and feedback.
Best regards,
Sandy




Original


From: YingzhenQuviaDatatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: rtg-dir@ietf.org <rtg-dir@ietf.org>;
Cc: draft-ietf-mboned-redundant-ingress-failover.all@ietf.org <draft-ietf-mboned-redundant-ingress-failover.all@ietf.org>;mboned@ietf.org <mboned@ietf.org>;
Date: 2025年08月09日 03:47
Subject: [MBONED]draft-ietf-mboned-redundant-ingress-failover-07 early Rtgdir review

Document: draft-ietf-mboned-redundant-ingress-failover
Title: Multicast Redundant Ingress Router Failover
Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu
Review result: Not Ready
 
Hello
 
I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of this draft.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mboned-redundant-ingress-failover/
 
The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, perform
an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to the
IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s lifetime
as a working group document. The purpose of the early review depends on the
stage that the document has reached.
 
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see
https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/rtg/RtgDir
 
Document: draft-ietf-mboned-redundant-ingress-failover-07
Reviewer: Yingzhen Qu
Review Date: 06-August-2025
Intended Status: Informational
 
Summary:
This document analyzes the redundant ingress-router failover problem within a
multicast domain.
 
Comments:
The draft needs some editorial work.
 
Take the abstract as an example. The current one doesn't read one, please
consider the following suggestion: This document analyzes the problem of
failover between redundant ingress routers in multicast domains. It describes
cold, warm, and hot standby modes, detailing their advantages, limitations, and
deployment considerations to help operators select appropriate mechanisms.
 
Some sentences are too long and hard to read, for example:
" 
The redundant ingress routers may be deployed to forward the same multicast
flow with only one router active at a time while the others act as backups. " 
 
Terminology:
121      IR: The ingress router for multicast flows in a multicast domain.
Instead of "The ingress router", I think this should be "An ingress router",
considering there might be multiple ingress routers.
 
123      ER: The egress router for multicast flows in a multicast domain.
should be "An egress router".
 
125      SIR: The IR responsible for sending the multicast flow, or the IR
126      whose flow is received by the ER, is called Selected-IR, or SIR for
127      short.
Can you pleas clarify that instead of "or the IR whose flow is received by the
ER", should this be "and ...." Suggested text: The IR that actively sends the
multicast flow, whose traffic is received by the egress router, is referred as
the Selected-IR, or SIR for short.
 
"failover" and "switchover " seems to be interchangeable, please clarify.
 
For the different backup modes:
Cold Standby section could mention implications for control-plane churn (e.g.,
slow convergence due to PIM Join/Prune updates). Warm Standby could elaborate
on synchronization mechanisms between routers (state sync, sequence numbers, or
shared RPF logic). Hot Standby: The trade-off between duplicate traffic and
fast failover is good, but might benefit from a clear reference to seamless
protection mechanisms like BFD-assisted PIM or BI-DIR multicast. Adding some
examples may help.
 
A session about deployment consideration will be helpful. Especially for
multi-domain scenarios, how this failover will behave across AS boundaries?
 
Section 3.2, about the failure detection, more details and comparisons should
should be provided.
 
The table in section 4.4 can add more content about comparisons of different
failover modes, such as failover time, control plane load, typical use cases
etc.
 
 
_______________________________________________
MBONED mailing list -- mboned@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to mboned-leave@ietf.org