Dino and Beau,
We just realized that -6 version didn't address this comment thread from you
two.
How about we add the following sentences in Section 3.4 "IP multicast in the
underlay" right after mentioning BIDIR?
With PIM Sparse Mode (PIM-SM), the number of flows required would be
(n*g), where n is the number of source NVEs that source packets for the group,
and g is the number of groups. Bidirectional PIM (BIDIR- PIM) would offer
better scalability with the number of flows required being g. Unfortunately,
many vendors still do not fully support BIDIR or have limitations on its
implementation. RFC6831 [RFC6831] has good description of using SSM as an
alternative to BIDIR if the VTEP/NVE devices have a way to learn of each
other's IP address so that they could join all SSM SPT's to create/maintain an
underlay SSM IP Multicast tunnel solution.
Please let us know if this resolution is not Okay with you.
Thanks, Linda
-----Original Message-----
From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dino Farinacci
Sent: 2016年5月24日 13:42
To: Williamson, Beau <[email protected]>
Cc: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <[email protected]>; MBONED WG
<[email protected]>; <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [nvo3] [MBONED] NVO3 Multicast Framework
If a reference to RFC6831 is provided, then there are many details on how an
underlay can support ASM, Bidir, and SSM.
Dino
> On May 24, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Williamson, Beau
> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> I'd like to see Section 3.4, "IP multicast in the underlay" expanded a bit.
>
> The section mentions the use of BIDIR for a scalable underlay. The sad fact
> is that many vendors still do not fully support BIDIR in their devices (after
> how many years?) or have limitations on its use that preclude it as a viable
> option. I'm no expert in these Underlay sort of DC to DC networks but it
> seems that SSM would not have that issue since it is basically a subset (and
> much simpler to implement and configure) of the PIM protocol and would
> therefore be available in pretty much all vendor devices that support
> multicast. The problem is one of Source Discovery of the VTEPs (or, in the
> case of this draft I think the term is NVE) which would be the sources of the
> multicast traffic in each TS.
>
> At the very least, I'd like to see a paragraph discussing the possible use of
> SSM as an alternative to BIDIR if the VTEP/NVE devices had a way to learn of
> each other's IP address so that they could join all SSM SPT's to
> create/maintain an underlay SSM IP Multicast tunnel solution. This would
> greatly simplify the configuration and management of the underlay IP
> Multicast environment.
>
> I realize that the VTEP/NVE Source Discovery problem is beyond the scope of
> this Framework document but I'd like to see the above mentioned to possibly
> encourage more work in this area if it is not already underway.
>
>
> Beau Williamson
> CCIE #1346 R/S Emeritus
> Principal Member of Technical Staff
> Corporate Engineering
> metroPCS/T-Mobile
> Internal: 314982
> Office: 469.330.4982
> Mobile: 972.679.4334
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MBONED [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dino Farinacci
> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 12:21 PM
> To: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)
> Cc: MBONED WG; <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
> Subject: Re: [MBONED] NVO3 Multicast Framework
>
> Sorry, I thought I had. NVo3, see my comments below.
>
> Dino
>
>> On May 24, 2016, at 6:14 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB)
>> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Dino
>>
>> Could you copy NVO3 on your comments, please?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>> From: EXT Dino Farinacci <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
>> Date: Monday, 16 May 2016 at 23:31
>> To: Leonard Giuliano <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
>> Cc: MBONED WG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Matthew Bocci
>> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>,
>> Benson Schliesser <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
>> Subject: Re: [MBONED] NVO3 Multicast Framework
>>
>> I just have one minor comment. Regarding the second paragraph:
>>
>> <PastedGraphic-2.png>
>>
>> Using LISP-signal-free does not mean the head-end must do replication. The
>> draft indicates that a mapping system is used to decide where packets go. If
>> the mapping database indicates that packets are encapsulated to multicast
>> RLOCs, or unicast RLOCs, or both in one set, so be it.
>>
>> And note if there is a single multicast RLOC, then there is no replication
>> happening at the head-end, just one packet encapsulting multicast in
>> multicast.
>>
>> So what is written above is true, but it may be associated with an incorrect
>> section title.
>>
>> Dino
>>
>>> On May 12, 2016, at 2:52 PM, Leonard Giuliano
>>> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> MBONED,
>>>
>>> The following draft recently went through WG last call in the NVO3 working
>>> group:
>>>
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nvo3-mcast-framework/
>>>
>>> This doc covers multicast in data center overlay networks. As you know, it
>>> is part of our charter in MBONED to provide feedback to other relevant
>>> working groups. Please review and send any comments to the NVO3 WG mailing
>>> list ([email protected])-<mailto:[email protected])-> all comments will be greatly
>>> appreciated by NVO3.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> MBONED mailing list
>>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
>>
>> <PastedGraphic-2.png>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MBONED mailing list
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
_______________________________________________
nvo3 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
