Hi, > 3. In section 8, "Clarification for MIB Objects", I'm not > > sure what we have to say to be sure its understood that this > > is a normative reference. Suggestions ? > > You know, maybe you need to have a MIB expert glance at this text, > for example the original MIB Doctor who reviewed the MIB module in > the first place. I'm not sure that any language I propose will be > any better than what you already have. However, if 'it would be > acceptable' becomes a MAY construct and 'would be copied' becomes > 'SHOULD be copied', then it's clearly normative. > > > Bharat, please spin a new version... > > Or you can wait to see if any other last call comments come in... >
Let us wait for other last call comments. I am hoping one of the MIB Doctors will comment on this and we can find a way to address this concern. Regards, Bharat > Thanks > Brian Carpenter > > > On 2010-12-20 07:49, Andy Kessler (kessler) wrote: > > Ok, we have made progress. > > > > These are the suggested changes we need to make: > > > > 1. In Section 3, Existing Algorithm. Add a new sentence to > > the end: > > > > The full benefits of the new algorithm will not be realized > > until it is widely deployed. > > > > 2. In section 5, Common use cases, first section "Default static > > Group-to-RP mapping with dynamically learned entries", add > > a sentence to the end: > > > > This is not an issue for IPv6 Multicast address ranges. > > > > 3. In section 8, "Clarification for MIB Objects", I'm not > > sure what we have to say to be sure its understood that this > > is a normative reference. Suggestions ? > > > > 4. Section 5, Common use cases, remove the subsection "More use > > cases". > > > > Bharat, please spin a new version with these changes when we > > resolve number 3 above. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Andy > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 11:54 AM > > To: Andy Kessler (kessler) > > Cc: [email protected]; General Area > Review Team; Bharat Joshi; Stig Venaas; Mike McBride (mmcbride) > > Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-pim-group-rp-mapping- > 07.txt > > > > Hi Andy, thanks for responding so promptly. A few comments in line: > > > > > > On 2010-12-18 18:36, Andy Kessler (kessler) wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Thank you for the review. > >> My comments are below annotated with Andy> > >> > >> Andy > >> > >> > >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > >> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > >> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > >> > >> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call > comments > >> you may receive. > >> > >> Document: draft-ietf-pim-group-rp-mapping-07.txt > >> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter > >> Review Date: 2010-12-18 > >> IETF LC End Date: 2010-12-23 > >> IESG Telechat date: > >> > >> Summary: In good shape, a few issues. > >> -------- > >> > >> Major issues: > >> ------------- > >> > >> 3. Existing algorithm > >> ... > >> The algorithm defined in this document updates algorithm defined > in > >> PIM-SM ( Section 4.7.1 in [RFC4601]). The new algorithm is > backward > >> compatible and will produce the same result only if the Group-to- > RP > >> mappings are learned from a single mapping source. > >> > >> A logical implication of the last sentence is that if some of the > Group-to-RP > >> mappings are learned from more than one mapping source, the new > algorithm might > >> not produce the same result as the existing algorithm. Is that > indeed the case, > >> and if so, don't we have a problem until all PIM-SM routers have > been updated? > >> > >> Andy> Most vendors today do not officially support deployments with > multiple > >> Andy> dynamic routing protocols. They probably have inconsistent > results now. > >> Andy> This algorithm will standardize the results for those vendors. > It will > >> Andy> be more consistent when all vendors do support the new > algorithm. > > > > OK. Maybe you could add a sentence to make it clear that adding the > new > > algorithm doesn't fix the problem completely until it's universally > deployed. > > > >> 5. Common use cases > >> > >> o Default static Group-to-RP mappings with dynamically learned > >> entries > >> > >> Many network operators will have a dedicated infrastructure for > the > >> standard multicast group range (224/4) and so might be using > >> statically configured Group-to-RP mappings for this range. > >> > >> Please indicate whether this issue also applies to IPv6. > >> > >> Andy> There is no issue with IPv6. IPv4 has some older baggage > because > >> Andy> the 224/4 addressing scheme has been around since before there > was > >> Andy> SSM and BSR. IPv6 Multicast does not have that history. > > > > OK. For someone ignorant of the history, it might be worth adding > > "This issue does not arise for IPv6." > > > >> > >> > >> 6. Proposed algorithm > >> ... > >> 10. From the remaining set of Group-to-RP Mappings we will > select > >> the RP with the highest IP address. This will serve as a > final > >> tiebreaker. > >> > >> Please define "highest". Does it mean "greatest when considered as > an > >> unsigned integer"? > >> > >> Andy> This should be the same method that is used to pick > >> Andy> the highest IP address in many protocols. One I know well is > >> Andy> the way that a designated router is selected in RFC 4601 in > >> Andy> section 4.3.2. The main part of the function says: > >> Andy> a.primary_ip_address > b.primary_ip_address > >> Andy> To me that has always meant you compare the first byte, > >> Andy> then the 2nd, the 3rd and then the 4th. > > > > and the 5th, etc, for IPv6 ;-) > > > >> Andy> I don't know where that would be defined. Maybe someone else > knows. > >> Andy> It is not defined in RFC 4601. > > > > I have no idea either. Maybe it's a term of art in routing protocols, > > so I won't insist; I was just looking at it from the viewpoint > > of a naive implementor. > > > >> 8. Clarification for MIB Objects > >> > >> When a Group-to-RP mapping entry is created in the > >> pimGroupMappingTable in the PIM-STD MIB[RFC5060], it would be > >> acceptable to have an entry with an RP with address type > 'unknown' > >> and a PimMode of Dense Mode or SSM. These entries would > represent > >> group ranges for Dense mode or SSM. > >> > >> Also all the entries which are already included in the SSM Range > >> table in the IP Mcast MIB would be copied over to > >> pimGroupMappingTable. They would have a type of configSSM and an > RP > >> with address type 'unknown' as described above. > >> > >> Is this section intended to be a normative update of RFC 5060, or is > >> it just commentary? The phrase "it would be acceptable" almost > sounds > >> like a normative MAY. > >> > >> Also, shouldn't it be 'unknown(0)' in the context of the MIB? (This > >> applies in three places in the draft.) > >> > >> Andy> At some point we received comments and requests to include all > >> Andy> the group mappings in this table - even for Dense Mode or SSM > >> Andy> which do not have an RP. We are merely stating that it OK to > >> Andy> do that and use the RP address and type (of the RP) of > unknown. > >> > > > > Yes, it makes sense, but please make it very clear whether you > > are writing normatively or not. > > > >> Nits: > >> ----- > >> > >> 5. Common use cases > >> ... > >> o More use cases > >> > >> By no means, the above list is complete. Please drop a mail to > >> 'authors' if you see any other use case for this. > >> > >> This seems a bit strange to appear in the final RFC; at the least it > needs rewriting. > >> > >> Andy> I agree. That was for the draft and should be removed. Should > we > >> Andy> just remove the whole section ? Or change the wording to > somehow > >> Andy> say there are more use cases that will benefit from this > algorithm ? > > > > Either way is fine for me. > > > >> The checker says: > >> > >> == There are 1 instance of lines with multicast IPv4 addresses in > the > >> document. If these are generic example addresses, they should > be changed > >> to use the 233.252.0.x range defined in RFC 5771 > >> > >> Andy> We have discussed this before. We need to use the addresses > that in the > >> Andy> examples. 239/8 is the Administratively Scoped Block as > defined in RFC 5771. > >> Andy> Its the same thing for 239.100.0.0/16 in section 5. We were > told to add > >> Andy> the comment that says its an administratively scoped multicast > address > >> Andy> range. Using GLOP will not make the same point we are trying > to explain. > > > > Fair enough. Don't be surprised if someone in the IESG asks the same > question. > > > > Brian **************** CAUTION - Disclaimer ***************** This e-mail contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended solely for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by e-mail and delete the original message. Further, you are not to copy, disclose, or distribute this e-mail or its contents to any other person and any such actions are unlawful. This e-mail may contain viruses. Infosys has taken every reasonable precaution to minimize this risk, but is not liable for any damage you may sustain as a result of any virus in this e-mail. You should carry out your own virus checks before opening the e-mail or attachment. Infosys reserves the right to monitor and review the content of all messages sent to or from this e-mail address. Messages sent to or from this e-mail address may be stored on the Infosys e-mail system. ***INFOSYS******** End of Disclaimer ********INFOSYS*** _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
