Hi, I have always had my opinion that Multicast Tree Building procedure is a very dynamic procedure, however BGP is skilled at stable-data (like prefix, or aggregated MVPN state on edge of a provider) driven “PUSH” thing.
I have almost forget the detail of the draft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast-controller through I had read it long ago. I would suggest that the relationship of the draft-ietf-bess and the polling draft can be re-evaluated. Thanks, Jingrong From: pim [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robert Raszuk Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 4:47 PM To: Susan Hares <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; Shraddha Hegde <[email protected]>; [email protected]; BESS <[email protected]>; Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [pim] [bess] [Idr] draft-hb-idr-sr-p2mp-policy (3/10 to 3/24/2022) - Adoption call Hi, It also needs to be observed that draft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast-controller has a broader scope and also covers mLDP functionality what may be extremely useful for networks which are not green field and would like to transition from current to new multicast trees. Having solution in IDR which covers multicast tree setup partially and at the same time a more complete one which has been already adopted and is progressing as a WG document is never a good thing. Besides I am puzzled since when IDR is accepting protocol extensions which are used to setup multicast distribution trees ? When the first version of the draft was written (Sep 2017) we went to BESS with draft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast-controller since that WG is center of gravity for all VPN/multi-tenant multicast related work. Kind regards, Robert On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 7:39 AM Shraddha Hegde <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: WG, I agree with Jeffrey that the BESS adopted draft draft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast-controller provides Solution in the same problem space. It is good to discuss the two drafts before adopting draft-hb-idr-sr-p2mp-policy in IDR. Rgds Shraddha Juniper Business Use Only From: Idr <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang Sent: Friday, March 25, 2022 8:17 PM To: Susan Hares <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: '[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>' <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; 'BESS' <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-hb-idr-sr-p2mp-policy (3/10 to 3/24/2022) - Adoption call [External Email. Be cautious of content] [+ BESS, PIM] Hi, I realized that in a hurry I did not respond to the specific questions below. Please see zzh> next to the questions. Looks like that there are some comments on BESS/PIM list and I will go through those to see if I have any addition/follow-up on those. Juniper Business Use Only From: Idr <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang Sent: Friday, March 25, 2022 6:30 AM To: Susan Hares <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-hb-idr-sr-p2mp-policy (3/10 to 3/24/2022) - Adoption call [External Email. Be cautious of content] I am sorry for responding late. I somehow missed this. I think we should discuss the relationship with daft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast-controller further before adopting this. Thanks. Jeffrey Juniper Business Use Only From: Idr <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Susan Hares Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2022 10:28 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Idr] draft-hb-idr-sr-p2mp-policy (3/10 to 3/24/2022) - Adoption call [External Email. Be cautious of content] IDR WG: If you just wish to respond to the IDR list, you may respond to this email on the adoption call. Cheers, Sue From: Idr [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Susan Hares Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2022 9:55 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [Idr] draft-hb-idr-sr-p2mp-policy (3/10 to 3/24/2022) This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for: draft-hb-idr-sr-p2mp-policy from (3/10 to 3/24/2022) You can obtain the draft at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hb-idr-sr-p2mp-policy/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hb-idr-sr-p2mp-policy/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!TfiPI1NfecN3db3pj6WZ8paxUr4s6OvmVZ91mapddPFeCkFZJodxFk8aTGCpYg34$> In your comments for this call please consider: Zzh> I want to point out that https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast-controller/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast-controller/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VA2RfAmcBA46YljU7KP0svRjk7kWVgXhzfsGzul45PZ5GQ32gWZgaclSIG0DaUH9$> is another way to do the same. I also explained in https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KObeSgKPu3HRbd0ZN7L7fWq_Eto/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KObeSgKPu3HRbd0ZN7L7fWq_Eto/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VA2RfAmcBA46YljU7KP0svRjk7kWVgXhzfsGzul45PZ5GQ32gWZgaclSICdM0D1B$> why it was in the bess WG. Zzh> In addition, the bess draft supports *other* multicast trees (IP, mLDP besides SR-P2MP) using a consistent way. 1) Does this technology support the SR P2MP features that distributes candidate paths which connect a multicast distribution tree (tree to leaves). Zzh> It is one way to use BGP to support that. The bess draft specifies another way. 2) Is the technology correctly specified for the NLRI (AFI/SAFI) and the tunnel encapsulation attribute additions (sections 2 and 3)? Zzh> The specified SAFI and tunnel encapsulation attribute additions are one way for the BGP signaling for SR-P2MP. The bess draft specifies another way. 3) Does the P2MP policy operation (section 4) provide enough information for those implementing this technology and those deploying the technology? 4) Do you think this multicast technology is a good Place to start for P2MP policy advertisement via BGP? Zzh> Both ways are good place to start. We just need to figure out how to proceed with the two proposals. 5) Do you think this SR P2MP policies should not be advertised via BGP? Zzh> I do think BGP signaling for SR P2MP is appropriate. We just need to discuss the two ways and figure out how to proceed. The authors have discussed before though we have not reached consensus. Zzh> Thanks! Zzh> Jeffrey Cheers, Susan Hares _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
