Re: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment in state "Candidate for WG Adoption"

[Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>]

John,

> Your claim that ingress replication is not multicast is, at best, a
stretch.

I use a very basic and simple rule of thumb ... if address of my packet is
a multicast address then it is multicast if not it is unicast.

Ref:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses/multicast-addresses.xhtml


Solution as described in draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment does not
seems to be requiring multicast addresses hence it is applicable to pure
unicast networks.

Thx,
Robert.


On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 10:20 PM John E Drake <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Robert,
>
>
>
> I’m sorry for the confusion.  My only point was that MVPN provides the
> reference architecture for dealing w/ multicast using a multiplicity of
> tunnel types in a consistent manner, as Sasha alluded to in his mention of
> PMSI.  Your claim that ingress replication is not multicast is, at best, a
> stretch.
>
>
>
> Yours Irrespectively,
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> *From:* Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 13, 2019 3:55 PM
> *To:* John E Drake <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; <
> [e-mail]> ([e-mail]) <
> [e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed
> draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment in state "Candidate for WG
> Adoption"
>
>
>
> Hi John,
>
>
>
> > Further, ingress replication has been part of MVPN since forever.
>
>
>
> Just curious how is this at all relevant for this discussion ?
>
>
>
> Do I have to roll out MVPN monster to split my unicast UDP stream to few
> receivers at selected network point ?
>
>
>
> And last but not least who said this is at all related to "ingress
> replication" ??? Ingress to p2mp segment can be at any SR midpoint in the
> network. Are you suggesting to run MVPN apparatus with manual tree building
> ? Whow :)
>
>
>
> Thx,
>
> R.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 9:40 PM John E Drake <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I think Sasha has a valid point.  Further, ingress replication has been
> part of MVPN since forever.
>
>
>
> Yours Irrespectively,
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only
>
> *From:* spring <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Alexander
> Vainshtein
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 13, 2019 9:26 AM
> *To:* Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; <
> [e-mail]> ([e-mail]) <
> [e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed
> draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment in state "Candidate for WG
> Adoption"
>
>
>
> Robert,
>
> Lots of thanks for a prompt response.
>
>
>
> You seem to imply that a multicast distribution tree that is built, say,
> by an SDN controller and used, say, to act as a PMSI in the mVPN
> application, is not really a multicast.  Personally I disagree, but this is
> a matter of taste and terminology.
>
>
>
> What looks unambiguous to me is that:
>
>    - The WG charter explicitly mentions ingress replication as one of
>    “new types of segments mapping to forwarding behavior” that “may require
>    architectural extensions”
>    - The current architecture document does not cover any such segment
>    type (whether because such segments have been considered as related to
>    multicast by the authors, or for some other reason is not all that
>    important. )
>
> Therefore my concern remains unresolved regardless of whether ingress
> replication is or is not formally considered as multicast.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Sasha
>
>
>
> Office: [phone]
>
> Cell:      [phone]
>
> Email:   [e-mail]
>
>
>
> *From:* Robert Raszuk <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 13, 2019 4:15 PM
> *To:* Alexander Vainshtein <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* <[e-mail]> ([e-mail]) <
> [e-mail]>;
> [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed
> draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment in state "Candidate for WG
> Adoption"
>
>
>
> Sasha,
>
>
>
> If I have some content and I send it to you and your neighbour as two
> unicast streams am I suddenly doing multicast ?
>
>
>
> IMHO N number of replicated unicasts is still not a multicast.
>
>
>
> Multicast in my definition requires  multicast groups, receiver joins,
> tree building protocols etc ... and this draft does not suggest any of
> this. IN contrast it just describes how can we have p2mp unicast
> distribution ... call it fan out node.
>
>
>
> Thx,
> R.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:42 PM Alexander Vainshtein <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have a question regarding adoption of
> draft-voyer-sr-spring-replication-segment as a SPRING WG document.
>
>
>
> These concerns are based on the following:
>
> 1.       This draft (both based on its title and on its content) deals
> with local (in the Root node) ingress replication which, in its turn, is
> one of the issues that could be used for delivery of multicast.
>
> 2.       Local ingress replication is mentioned in the SPRING WG Charter
> as one of the “New types of segments mapping to forwarding behavior”. The
> charter further says that “Any of the above <*Sasha: New types of
> segments*> may require architectural extensions”
>
> 3.       The current (and, AFAIK, the only existing) Segment Routing
> Architecture document (RFC 8402
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/clicktime.symantec.com/34qM9QogJnh1eY5nZPXYAkA6H2?u=https*3A*2F*2Ftools.ietf.org*2Fhtml*2Frfc8402__;JSUlJSU!8WoA6RjC81c!TeDGZsCZsxVU3U1A-_hQaYhZsmLZFF4oF-lGSpNnOmTa-zUl6jfGkGEUOvwkLSU$>)
> explicitly states in Section 6 that “Segment Routing is defined for
> unicast. The application of the source-route concept to Multicast is not in
> the scope of this document”.
>
> The combinations of observations above strongly suggests to me that a
> document defining multicast-related extensions of segment routing
> architecture should be very useful (if not mandatory) for progressing the
> Replication Segment draft. From my POV the Replication Segment draft is not
> (and is not intended to be) such a document.
>
>
>
> I wonder if there is an intention to produce such a document in the
> timeframe that could be relevant for discussion of the Replication Segment
> draft.
>
>
>
> Nothing in this message should be interpreted as my objection to (or
> support of) adoption of the Replication Segment draft as a WG document *per
> se*.
>
> Bit I find it difficult to take a position any which way without a clear
> and commonly agreed upon framework for multicast in segment routing.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Sasha
>
>
>
> Office: [phone]
>
> Cell:      [phone]
>
> Email:   [e-mail]
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: spring <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of IETF Secretariat
> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 7:06 PM
> To: [e-mail];
> spring-chairs@ietf..org; [e-mail]
> Subject: [spring] The SPRING WG has placed
> draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment in state "Candidate for WG
> Adoption"
>
>
>
>
>
> The SPRING WG has placed draft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment in
> state Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Bruno Decraene)
>
>
>
> The document is available at
>
>
> https://clicktime.symantec.com/3EMJRgfTdX6UyWKGnMPiVwZ6H2?u=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment%2F
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/clicktime.symantec.com/3EMJRgfTdX6UyWKGnMPiVwZ6H2?u=https*3A*2F*2Fdatatracker.ietf.org*2Fdoc*2Fdraft-voyer-spring-sr-replication-segment*2F__;JSUlJSUl!8WoA6RjC81c!TeDGZsCZsxVU3U1A-_hQaYhZsmLZFF4oF-lGSpNnOmTa-zUl6jfGkGEUHVCWfyU$>
>
>
>
> Comment:
>
> IPR call:
>
>
> https://clicktime.symantec.com/3KG7A2qM3Xf2eqDctGju1e66H2?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmailarchive.ietf.org%2Farch%2Fmsg%2Fspring%2F_stJjBM5K6vr7QYw0HRKf-z0_us
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/clicktime.symantec.com/3KG7A2qM3Xf2eqDctGju1e66H2?u=https*3A*2F*2Fmailarchive.ietf.org*2Farch*2Fmsg*2Fspring*2F_stJjBM5K6vr7QYw0HRKf-z0_us__;JSUlJSUlJQ!8WoA6RjC81c!TeDGZsCZsxVU3U1A-_hQaYhZsmLZFF4oF-lGSpNnOmTa-zUl6jfGkGEUfVccUWU$>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> spring mailing list
>
> [e-mail]
>
>
> https://clicktime.symantec.com/3AtNGCKcyM5uigFH55oARZ86H2?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fspring
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/clicktime.symantec.com/3AtNGCKcyM5uigFH55oARZ86H2?u=https*3A*2F*2Fwww.ietf.org*2Fmailman*2Flistinfo*2Fspring__;JSUlJSUl!8WoA6RjC81c!TeDGZsCZsxVU3U1A-_hQaYhZsmLZFF4oF-lGSpNnOmTa-zUl6jfGkGEUhKjFqCs$>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
>
> This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains
> information which is
> CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have
> received this
> transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then
> delete the original
> and all copies thereof.
> ___________________________________________________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/clicktime.symantec.com/3KSi9HHVnunMDQNLd2U3Sij6H2?u=https*3A*2F*2Fwww.ietf.org*2Fmailman*2Flistinfo*2Fspring__;JSUlJSUl!8WoA6RjC81c!TeDGZsCZsxVU3U1A-_hQaYhZsmLZFF4oF-lGSpNnOmTa-zUl6jfGkGEUZIWr6Wk$>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
>
> This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains
> information which is
> CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have
> received this
> transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then
> delete the original
> and all copies thereof.
> ___________________________________________________________________________
>
>