Pim Status PagesProtocols for IP Multicast (Active WG)
Rtg Area: Alvaro Retana, Deborah Brungard, Martin Vigoureux | 1998-Jul-28 —Chairs:
IETF-102 pim minutes
Session 2018-07-17 1550-1820: Notre Dame - Audio stream - pim chatroom
PIM WG notes draft-ietf-pim-multiple-upstreams-reqs: Carlos: Author to update document and upload new revision which would address AD comments. draft-ietf-pim-msdp-yang: There was no response in WGLC. There would be 2nd WGLC. draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-13: Hitoshi: AD need some implementation detail, since document is experimental it need to have some more detail. Author is considering it to change it to informational document. AD has some concern over document so Author need input from vendor about implementation. Mike: Will draft be in hold for now? Hitoshi: Yes. Action Item: WG need to provide some help to author, to get implementation detail to move forward. draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-snooping-yang-03 Updated new version, 03. It was accordance with rfc6087 New update is expected with comment from Yang doctors. Robustness variable range got changed. Added example of instance data tree with JSON encoding. Requesting WGLC. draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang: Waiting for AD eval. Mike: to Alvaro, if Yang data model been reviewed. Alvaro: He would review the draft. PIM with IPv4 prefix over IPv6 NH: Presented 2 IETF back. It got adopted as WG document Author thinks it is ready for WGLC. 3 in room support none against. WGLC to be done in list. pim-reserved-bits: It is intended to update PIM RFC to make sure bits are not marked as available in PIM RFC . Extending Type space Discussions: Andrew: Do we need to solve this problem? We think right now there is no need. Toerless: We can procrastinate it for some time. Ravinder : No need to update now Alvaro: If we adopt, we do not need to publish. We can change the document as per need. So even if we publish this document, it would have no impact on existing implementation. Toerless: You can let it expire and bring it up when there is really need. Dave Allen: Is there some way to change IANA policy? Alvaro: 4601 / 7761 does not say how to assign bits. Another RFC took it. If some other WG assigns the document, we have no way to block it. Since we do not have allocation policy, we can potentially allocate the space. Donald: You can have Ack to check if implementation supports new type? Stig: New hello options can be added to check if Extended type is supported. Action Item: Mike to check interest in list. p2mp-BFD: Presented in London. BFD to use to monitor health of DR There was discussion in list, and draft was updated based on feedback. It would be good to monitor DR and BDR Suggestion is to be used for PIM Assert too. Stig: There are several implementations already. This document does not require mull mesh of BFD sessions. There is no existing document in PIM describing BFD uses. 2 people are for adoption, none against. Need to take it to list for adoption call. Framework for multicast applied to SR-MPLS: Toerless: Is tree-SID proprietary? Hooman: Tree-SID was never discussed in IETF. Tree-SID was discussed in BGP-SR TE draft. Mike: Since Spring is not accepting multicast related draft, it is not part of their charter, it is being presented in PIM which weve agreed to between the SPRING/PIM chairs. Toerless: State reduction is coming from tunneling? what is the reason to call it as MPLS / SR ? Initially it started work as global SID , that was the reason it was named with SR Hooman: We need SR type of solution of multicast. Multiple solution exist, should it go in single group. If there is one solution needed Toerless: Whether SR or MPLS ? can we have technical reason to pick one above other. Author to provide more detail. First Presented IETF97 , Its updated new text and improvement to algorithm in current version. Jeffery Zhang: we still have state in core, as long as there is replication point. It does not fit SPRING. In SPRING does not need, single solution for all case. Is there really gain with this solution? This could be one solution, using name framework in draft is not good. It does not modify existing data plane solution. And this solution can be done with existing MPLS. Andrew: multicast is not easy, by the time this become standard. We might already have hardware which support other better solution. Do we really need complex solution? Hoomann: It might be complex solution and might not be useful. It might need to make simple. Jeffrey Zhang: multicast is not in latest SPRING. Is it not related to SPRING. Alvaro: It must be part of multicast. Ravinder: Do not agree to use only BEIR , it would be good to have multiple solution. How would it scale for high scale? Andrew: We cannot have multiple solution. We need to have proper technologies. We should have reason to have some solution. Action Item: WG adoption call in list. Reliable PIM Registers: No update since 101 Working group adoption? Lenny: MSDP is not problem here, real problem is ASM. You are moving all the stuff from MSDP to other protocol. Do not disagree with draft, but not agree with strategy. Toerless: MSDP works only with IPv4. It can be implemented for IPv6 too. It would be inconsistent. So, its good to have new document. Lenny: We might still need intra domain ASM. Should we move to new solution? PIM NULL Register: It was presented in IETF 101 Its packs multiple NULL register in single message WG adoption call needed. PIM graceful insertion and removal of PIM router: Provides mechanism to gracefully insert and remove the PIM router in network. Jeffrey: it has been brought up before, it can be used in more general place. Even for topology changes, it can be used. Do not think signaling is needed. Its all local behavior. Andrew: No signaling is needed. It works for most of existing implementation. There is other mechanism which provides 0 traffic loss. Lenny: It could be generic case. Toerless: There might be already existing document Ravinder: Need to prevent loop or duplicate traffic. Jeffrey: Its almost same as MOFRR. More discussion in list. IGMP / MLD standard status: Discussion to see if IGMP / MLD different version document should be moved as standard. Discussion was from MBONED . Alvaro : WG can do whatever looks good. Either absolute the document. Or change the status as Historic. Process is status change document, which would explain why we are doing it. If justification is bigger or there are section, then it might be actual draft which goes through all of the discussion. Andrew: if it is historic, can we still make some changes? Can it be changed again? Alvaro: Since it goes through all process, theoretically it should not be changed in future. Andrew: Some of the changes can be done quick. More discussion to happen over list and move forward with next step. DR load balancing: History of draft and current status. 1 hand in favor of drlb none against wglc will take it to the list. Backup-DR: How is it diferent from pim dr improvement Lenny: strikes me as a narrow case. Still have failure detection with/without this. Just reducing join latency on one router. Only solving join latency on one hop. Theres MOFRR that kind of solves this problem. Mankamana: problem statement is the exact problem. Can we do it with existing hellos. Lenny: do we need to specify this in a wg doc more of an implementation issue. Ravinder: no real problem on SP network because its already subsecond. We solved this using other methods. Already other options that solve this problem. Mankamana: if its in the protocol its on a as needed basis. Some customers need faster convergence. You can still go with the existing pim dr model. Andrew: second Lenny. Informational draft perhaps. Shouldnt be specifying. Stig: for those who dont need it to be specified, do you see this as being the same for the current wg draft. Lenny: just seems like a small optimization for a small failure. Stig: we have two drafts in the same space. Lenny: just dont need changes to the protocol. Graceful-dr-shutdown: New hello option saying going in maintenance mode. Lenny: confused about the assert part which is usually for a transit lan, they dont usually occur on the lan with receivers. Are they pim asserts and why needed? Mankamana: yes, pim asserts. Timing for leaving and taking role. Assert is one of the mechanisms but open to other options. Lenny: why just not send a lower DR priority and the other will take over. Mankamana: that is one option. This is to avoid any traffic loss. You will have to give other DR the ability to form tree and start forming. Lenny: I set my dr priority to 0 and keep forwarding until I see someone else forwarding. Seems like an implementation thing. Could be specified for experimental. Not worth changing the protocol. Ravinder: receivers dont take two copies of the mcast copies anyway. Stig: either you accept gap in packets or you try to make it smooth like this where you will get a duplicate packets or two. Have to choose one or the other. Lenny: what if he sends join to the backup dr. would that work. Then he can prune his branch. Financial guys have problems with duplicate packets. Lenny: lets say 110 his upstream link dies, his shortest path could be one of the other 3 routers. Stig: you still have the assert problem.