Dear authors Can you describe in more detail the relationship and interaction between the two SR P2MP variants below:
Defines new SAFI for SR P2MP variant https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hb-idr-sr-p2mp-policy-04 Does this draft utilize all the drafts below Tree sid / Replication sid and SR P2MP MVPN procedures for auto discovery etc. Defines Tree SID stitching of replication SID SR policy P2MP variant https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-voyer-pim-sr-p2mp-policy-00 Replication SID https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment Defines new SR P2MP PTA using MVPN procedures https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp Kind Regards Gyan On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 3:39 PM Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzhang= [email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > > > When it comes to SR-P2MP state downloading, there are three aspects > involved here: > > > > 1. NLRI to encode policy information > 2. NLRI to encode <tree/path/instance, node> identification > 3. Tunnel Encapsulation Attribute (TEA) that encodes actual > replication branches > > > > The major difference between the two ways is on #3. Indeed, we could not > reach consensus – there are two ways of encoding the TEA and each has its > own considerations. The draft-ietf-bess way (even when used for SR-P2MP) is > aligned with other non-SR multicast trees (IP/mLDP) for a unified approach, > while draft-hb is aligned to unicast BGP SR policy. > > > > I want to initiate a discussion and I can understand that WGs may > eventually choose to allow both ways for #3. Even so, I think we should > strive for consistent approach at least for #1 and #2 (and for that I am > not saying that draft-ietf-bess way must be used). For example, use the > same SAFI and route types for both ways, but use different TEA encoding > methods. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Jeffrey > > > > > > Juniper Business Use Only > > *From:* Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, March 25, 2022 11:34 AM > *To:* Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <[email protected]>; Susan Hares < > [email protected]>; [email protected] > *Cc:* '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 'BESS' <[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]* > > > > Hi All > > > > 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. > > > > HB> yes there was discussion and there was no consensus to merge the 2 > drafts as their approach is widely different. The authors of this draft > have kept the implementation very close to unicast BGP SR Policy for the > segment list, which simplifies the implementation and deployment of the > technology. As you said there seems to be two way to download this policy > and the segment list and we can work on both. > > Given the solid support I don’t see why the adoption of this draft should > be delayed because of these arguments. > > > > Thanks > > Hooman > > > > *From:* pim <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang > *Sent:* Friday, March 25, 2022 10:47 AM > *To:* Susan Hares <[email protected]>; [email protected] > *Cc:* '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 'BESS' <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [pim] [Idr] draft-hb-idr-sr-p2mp-policy (3/10 to > 3/24/2022) - Adoption call > > > > [+ 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]> *On Behalf Of *Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang > *Sent:* Friday, March 25, 2022 6:30 AM > *To:* Susan Hares <[email protected]>; [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]> *On Behalf Of *Susan Hares > *Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2022 10:28 AM > *To:* [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] <[email protected]>] *On > Behalf Of *Susan Hares > *Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2022 9:55 AM > *To:* [email protected]; [email protected]; [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$> > > > > In your comments for this call please consider: > > > > Zzh> I want to point out that > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast-controller/ > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-bgp-multicast-controller/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!S33KKHGKJVywLaE5hTpBZvb2Og_8GrdduTTT-6xmknLUl8Yylk7RNo3lGazDpUZk$> > 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!S33KKHGKJVywLaE5hTpBZvb2Og_8GrdduTTT-6xmknLUl8Yylk7RNo3lGW1pXg_c$> > 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] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess > -- <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *Email [email protected] <[email protected]>* *M 301 502-1347*
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
