Hi Mankamana and authors,
I went through version 4 of this draft. Looks much better, thanks.
I still think it can be improved before it progresses further:
* The abstract and introduction should already say that the procedures are
valid for MLD proxy, in addition to IGMP proxy. The last paragraph in the
terminology section is good, but I think it should go into the introduction
IMHO.
* “IGMP” join/leave synch route is still used throughout the text, whereas
Multicast join/leave synch route should be used.
* Error handling for routes type 6/7/8:
* Can you mix source and groups of different families? I assume not, but
it would be nice to be explicit
* Can the originator IP be of different family than source/group? I
assume yes, but it would be nice to be explicit
* Multicast Leave synch route and Leave Group Synch sequence number, needs
clarification, I think it is underspecified:
* The PE advertising the route will increment the seq number with each
leave procedure for the (x,G), but how does it have to be processed at
reception?
* Is a new seq number for the same [RD,esi,tag,(x,G),orig] restarting
the max response time for the (x,G)?
* What if the received seq number is lesser than the previous one for
the same route? Any action?
Typos:
* Section 4.1.1 – s/the exclude flag MUST also needs to/the exclude flag
MUST/
* Section 4.1.2 – s/MUST withdraws/MUST withdraw/
* Section 5.1 – s/IMGMPv3/IGMPv3/
Thank you!
Jorge
From: BESS <[email protected]> on behalf of "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 9:29 AM
To: "Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]"
<[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-03 shepherd's review
Hi Mankamana,
Pls find additional feedbacks inline.
Brgds,
Stephane
From: Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 00:38
To: LITKOWSKI Stephane OBS/OINIS; [email protected];
[email protected]
Cc: Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)
Subject: Re: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-03 shepherd's review
Hi Stephane,
Thanks for your review comment. Please find inline.
Thanks
Mankamana
From: BESS <[email protected]> on behalf of "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 6:20 AM
To: "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: [bess] draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-03 shepherd's review
Hi,
There are some Nits to fix:
https://www6.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-03.txt
Here is my review of the document:
Abstract & Intro:
s/RFC 7432/ RFC7432.
The reference should be removed from the abstract (as per IDNits).
Mankamana: Will be taken care of in next revision.
§2.1:
It may be good to change the paragraph name to IGMP/MLD proxy and use IGMP/MLD
in the paragraph. This comment could apply to various other places of the
document.
Mankamana: Will take care for paragraph name. Inside paragraph we have used
IGMP , and start of the document we did state that all of IGMP procedure are
applicable for MLD too. Is it ok ?
§2.1.1:
-“it only sends a single BGP
message corresponding to the very first IGMP Join”.
[SLI] Do we really care about the IGMP message (first or second…) used as a
source to build the EVPN route ? The important point is that we do it only one
time.
Mankamana: changing text to “very first IGMP Join received”.
Purpose of this text is to clarify that we send BGP route as soon as we process
it for first time locally. Subsequent joins are not sent.
[SLI2] Could you add a statement about this goal of sending the
BGP update asap ?
- For MLD what is the expected behavior in term of flag setting in the
SMET, do we set v2 for MLDv2 or do we consider that it is equivalent to IGMPv3
and then we set v3 ?
Mankamana: Have text in terminology
“ This document also assumes familiarity with the
terminology of
[RFC7432]. Though most of the place this document uses term IGMP
membership request (Joins), the text applies equally for MLD
membership request too. Similarly, text for IGMPv2 applies to MLDv1
and text for IGMPv3 applies to MLDv2”
I hope this covers your comment.
[SLI2] It does partially, the thing that IGMPv2 is similar to MLDv1 does not
explicitly say what we do it term of encoding of the version number. As the
version encoding is clearly stated in §7.1, it would be better to point to this
paragraph rather than giving an ambiguous/partial information there.
- s/BGP is a statefull/BGP is a stateful ?
Mankamana : Done.
- In 1), for clarity purpose, it would be good to separate the (*,G)
and (S,G) case in two separate paragraphs. At the first read, when reading “In
case of IGMPv3, exclude flag…”, I thought it was always applicable for IGMPv3
which does not make sense, while it is applicable only “If the IGMP Join is for
(*,G)”.
Mankamana: Across document (*,G) and (S,G) processing have been written
together, do you think for consistency it might be good to keep it in single
paragraph ?
[SLI2] They can remain in the same section, I just wanted to add an empty line
just before “If the IGMP Join is for (S,G),”.
- IMO, 1) 2) 3) and 4) should use normative language
Mankamana: Will be taken care in next update.
- Wouldn’t it be better to present the encoding of SMET before ?
Because the text talks about fields set in the route while it hasn’t been
presented yet.
Mankamana: Do you want to move BGP encoding before this section ?
[SLI2] Two options, you move the encoding before or you at least point to the
section where the encoding is detailed.
- 5) talks about errors that SHOULD be logged, but from a BGP
perspective, is it considered as a BGP error ? What is the expected behavior
per RFC7606 ?
Mankamana: Would update this, and it SHOULD be considered as BGP error and
should be handled as per RFC7606
- 7) is not clear about IGMPv3, the first part of the text tells that
the IGMP Join must not be sent if there is no PIM router. While the end of the
text tells that it is not a problem for IGMPv3. So is there a difference
between IGMPv2 and IGMPv3 reports ?
Mankamana: This comment is not clear. Last part of the paragraph trying to
explain that what is difference in behavior for IGMPv2 and IGMPv3 . If you
think text should be modified, it would be great if you could suggest expected
text .
[SLI2] It is not clear to me if the IGMP suppression is applicable both to
IGMPv3 and IGMPv2 or only to IGMPv2 as IGMPv3 does not have the issue. The text
is ambiguous on this point.
§2.1.2:
- You have a paragraph numbering issue “IGMP Leave Group Advertisement
in BGP” should be 2.1.2
Mankamana: Done
- As for §2.1.1, normative language should be used
Mankamana: Taking care in next revision.
- 2) I agree that there is an error when a SMET is received with all
version flags unset. How does the receiver handle this ? does it consider the
NLRI has withdrawn per RFC7606 from a BGP perspective ? Does it the the current
state of the route and ignore the update ? Does it close the session ?
Mankamana: will update the text “error MUST be considered as BGP error and
should be handled as per RFC7606”
- 2) “If the PE receives an EVPN SMET route withdraw, then it must
remove the remote PE from the OIF list associated with that multicast
group.” This text is a duplicate on 3).
Mankamana: Done
§2.2:
s/each PE need to have/each PE MUST have/ ?
Mankamana: Done
§4:
s/support IGMP sync procedures/support IGMP synchronization procedures/
Mankamana: Done
§4.1:
s/The IGMP Join Sync route carries the ES-Import RT/ The IGMP Join Sync route
MUST carry the ES-Import RT/
Mankamana: Done
Again, the paragraph lacks of normative language
Mankamana: Done
§4.3:
s/procedure section(4.1)/the procedure defined in section 4.1/
s/Remote PE (PE/Remote PEs (PEs/
Mankamana: Done
§5:
Need to use normative language
The paragraph uses IGMP Join Sync Route or Leave Sync route while §7 uses
Multicast Join Synch Route. Please ensure consistency. This applies to other
sections of the document.
Mankamana: Done
§6:
Please expand “IR” in the title and add it into the acronyms section.
Mankamana: Done
“all of the PEs in the BD support that tunnel type and IGMP”, do you mean IGMP
proxy ?
Mankamana: Yes, it would be IGMP Proxy, would make the changes.
§7.1 brings some clarification about MLD usage which wasn’t clear in section 2.
However §2 is still confusing in version numbers between IGMP and MLD. As an
example, a SMET with a source must not exist with IGMPv2/1 while it must not
with MLDv1 only.
Mankamana: Will add more text clarifying
1. With respect to IGMP to MLD mapping , IGMPv2 should be mapped to
MLDv1. And IGMPv3 should be mapped to MLDv2
2. For flag encoding, v1 flag would carry IGMP v1 as well as MLD v1 & v2
flag would carry IGMPv2 as well as MLDv2.
Looks ok ?
[SLI2] Yes, it looks ok, this means that an implementation should look not only
at the flags but also to the group length/source length to understand if this
is MLD or IGMP.
§7.1.1
“Support for this route type is
optional.”. With regards to RFC7432, yes. However if an implementation
supports this draft, the support of the NLRI is mandatory.
Mankamana: Do you want to remove optional statement here ? or explicitly
state that with respect to 7432 this is optional. But mandatory if support for
this draft is claimed ?
[SLI2] I propose to remove it.
§7.3.1
Typo is the title: s/Multicas/Multicast/
Mankamana: Done
§7.4:
s/it Must set the IGMP Proxy/it MUST set the IGMP/MLD Proxy/
Could we have some device that support IGMP proxy but not MLD proxy ?
Mankamana : An implementation can have partial support. But with respect to
EVPN, do we really need to be address family dependent ?
[SLI2] That’s an open question ! We should wonder if there is any hurt doing
that in case of partial support.
§9:
s/RECOMENDED/RECOMMENDED
Mankamana: Done
§10:
Does it change something to IGMP/MLD security ? Maybe this should be mentioned
as well
Mankamana: It should not be adding any security , and IGMP/MLD standard
security aspect should be applicable here as well. I would add text mentioning
that.
References:
I think that IGMP and MLD RFCs should be set as normative. You should add
MLDv1, IGMPv2, IGMPv1 as references as well and use the references in the text.
Mankamana: Done
RFC7387 and 7623 are referenced but not used
Mankamana: Done
s/FC4541/RFC4541/
Mankamana: Done
RFC7606 and 4684 should be set as normative
Mankamana: Done
Brgds,
[Orange logo]<http://www.orange.com/>
Stephane Litkowski
Network Architect
Orange/SCE/EQUANT/OINIS/NET
Orange Expert Future Networks
phone: +33 2 23 06 49 83
<https://monsi.sso.francetelecom.fr/index.asp?target=http%3A%2F%2Fclicvoice.sso.francetelecom.fr%2FClicvoiceV2%2FToolBar.do%3Faction%3Ddefault%26rootservice%3DSIGNATURE%26to%3D+33%202%2023%2028%2049%2083%20>
NEW !
mobile: +33 6 71 63 27 50
<https://monsi.sso.francetelecom.fr/index.asp?target=http%3A%2F%2Fclicvoice.sso.francetelecom.fr%2FClicvoiceV2%2FToolBar.do%3Faction%3Ddefault%26rootservice%3DSIGNATURE%26to%3D+33%206%2037%2086%2097%2052%20>
NEW !
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
