Subject: [pim] call for adoption: draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-01

From: Mike McBride <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 12:48:17 -0700

draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-01 was presented in our most recent pim meeting in
Orlando. 4 people were in favor of adopting the draft. Zero against.
Please read the draft (its short) and provide an opinion either way by
the end of next Friday the 17th.

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-01.txt

thanks,
mike

---

From: Xuxiaohu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 02:32:32 +0000

Hi all,

This draft reminds me that there has been a draft (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-pim-drpriority-auto-adjustment-03) three years before which uses almost the same technology to save almost the same problem.

The following is quoted from the above draft:

   "In fact, if VRRP is run on the PIM routers and the VRRP has enabled
   the upstream link tracking mechanism, the PIM DR failover mechanism
   could be coupled with the VRRP so as to reuse the upstream link
   tracking mechanism of VRRP. One option is to synchronize the PIM DR
   priority value to the VRRP priority value always. In this way, the
   PIM DR and the VRRP master will always run on an identical router if
   the VRRP Preempt_Mode is set to True. Another option is to make the
   PIM DR and the VRRP master run on an identical router anyway (i.e.,
   regardless whether or not the VRRP Preempt_Mode is True). To achieve
   this goal, the PIM DR priority of the VRRP master router SHOULD
   always be set to a higher fixed value than that of the VRRP slave
   router automatically."

Best regards,
Xiaohu

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 代表 Mike
> McBride
> 发送时间: 2013年5月10日 3:48
> 收件人: [email-masked]
> 主题: [pim] call for adoption: draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-01
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim

---

From: "Heidi Ou (hou)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 18:36:26 +0000

I support adoption of the draft.

- Heidi

---

From: Xuxiaohu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 02:27:23 +0000

Hi all,

Best regards,
Xiaohu

---

From: Mike McBride <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 23:16:57 -0700

Folks,

We have this new draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-01 which we are about to adopt
into the pim wg. It has been brought to the WGs attention that there
is a older draft (draft-xu-pim-drpriority-auto-adjustment-03) which
may have some overlap with the new one. That older draft does contain
information about VRRP aware PIM which is attributed to Stig in the
acknowledgements. If the five of you authors feel that there is some
validity that the older draft contains some information being used in
the new draft, you may want to acknowledge that in the references or
acknowledgements. It appears the drafts are dissimilar enough to not
be merged but I may be wrong. Please share your opinions on this so we
can establish consensus within the group and move the document along.

If the broader WG participants have an opinion on this please speak up.

thanks,
mike

---

From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 21:36:27 +0000

Hi Mike,

It seems that both drafts seem to solve nearly the same problem (multiple routers on the multi-access interface and existence of first-hop redundancy protocols e.g. VRRP). 

Cheers,
Rajiv

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike McBride [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 2:17 AM
> To: Xuxiaohu; [email-masked]; Rajiv Asati (rajiva);
> Prashant Jhingran (pjhingra); Wei Zhou (weizho2)
> Cc: Stig Venaas; Mike McBride; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [pim] call for adoption: draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-01
> 
> Folks,
> 
> We have this new draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-01 which we are about to adopt into
> the pim wg. It has been brought to the WGs attention that there is a older
> draft (draft-xu-pim-drpriority-auto-adjustment-03) which may have some
> overlap with the new one. That older draft does contain information about
> VRRP aware PIM which is attributed to Stig in the acknowledgements. If the
> five of you authors feel that there is some validity that the older draft
> contains some information being used in the new draft, you may want to
> acknowledge that in the references or acknowledgements. It appears the
> drafts are dissimilar enough to not be merged but I may be wrong. Please
> share your opinions on this so we can establish consensus within the group
> and move the document along.
> 
> > This draft reminds me that there has been a draft
> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-pim-drpriority-auto-adjustment-03)
> three years before which uses almost the same technology to save almost
> the same problem.
> >
> >> draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-01 was presented in our most recent pim meeting
> >> in Orlando. 4 people were in favor of adopting the draft. Zero against.
> >> Please read the draft (its short) and provide an opinion either way
> >> by the end of next Friday the 17th.
> >>

---

From: "Prashant Jhingran (pjhingra)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 09:08:31 +0000

Hi Mike,

I agree with Rajiv, both drafts are trying to solve the same issue....that too in almost similar way.

-
Regards,
Prashant Jhingran
NOSTG TME - SP Wi-Fi

http://wwwin.cisco.com/ios/tech/mobile/proxyipv6/ 
http://wwwin.cisco.com/ios/tech/broadband

-----Original Message-----
From: Rajiv Asati (rajiva) 
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:06 AM
To: Mike McBride; Xuxiaohu; [email-masked]; Prashant Jhingran (pjhingra); Wei Zhou (weizho2)
Cc: Stig Venaas; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [pim] call for adoption: draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-01

Hi Mike,

Cheers,
Rajiv

> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-pim-drpriority-auto-adjustment-03
> ) three years before which uses almost the same technology to save 
> almost the same problem.
> >

---

From: Xuxiaohu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 01:56:20 +0000

Hi,

> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Wei Zhou (weizho2) [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 发送时间: 2013年5月24日 5:36
> 收件人: Prashant Jhingran (pjhingra); Rajiv Asati (rajiva); Mike McBride;
> Xuxiaohu; [email-masked]
> 抄送: Stig Venaas; [email-masked]
> 主题: Re: [pim] call for adoption: draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-01
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thank you all for providing comments and the information on
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-pim-drpriority-auto-adjustment-03.
> 
> I just read through the draft proposed by xiaohu as I was not aware of
> this draft until xiaohu kindly mentioned in the mail list. After carefully
> comparing the two drafts, let me try explain the differences between them
> (referred as draft-xu-dr-adj and draft-zhou-pim-vrrp):
> 
> 1. The original problems that two drafts try to solve might look similar
> but they are actually quite different in the following way:
> draft-xu-dr-adj targets the PIM DR auto-adjustment based on upstream link
> tracking, while the idea in draft-zhou-pim-vrrp is to provide a complete
> solution to enable multicast to interoperate with first hop redundancy
> protocol in response to any interested events: Master routers goes down,
> upstream link up/down, bandwidth change and other logical objects that
> VRRP could track.

As it said in section 2 of draft-xu-dr-adj,

"  In fact, if VRRP is run on the PIM routers and the VRRP has enabled
   router automatically.
"
In a word, the PIM DR and the VRRP master could actually run on the same router no matter whatever factor triggers the VRRP switchover, as per the above description.

> 2. The solution proposed in draft-zhou-pim-vrrp is designed as a complete
> multicast failover mechanism: in addition to DR priority adjustment, the
> new draft addresses other critical problems in providing multicast
> redundancy, including Assert metric adjustment, DF election for BiDir
> group and tracking multiple VRRP groups.

> 3. In addition to last-hop and first-hop scenario, the new draft addresses
>  transit network scenario to make Master router process PIM J/P for the
> virtual address, and how to maintain or rebuild J/P state when switching.

Could you please explain the motivation for enabling VRRP, rather than IGP in the real transit network scenario?

> The only similarity between the old and new drafts is to make master
> router the DR, which is obvious way to make desired router DR.

Yes, this is the major motivation for both drafts in my understanding.

Best regards,
Xiaohu

> Thanks,
> Wei
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/23/13 2:08 AM, "Prashant Jhingran (pjhingra)" <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
> 
> >Hi Mike,
> >
> >It seems that both drafts seem to solve nearly the same problem (multiple
> >routers on the multi-access interface and existence of first-hop
> >redundancy protocols e.g. VRRP).
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Rajiv
> >
> >

---

From: "Wei Zhou (weizho2)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 21:36:23 +0000

Hi,

Thanks,
Wei

---

From: "Wei Zhou (weizho2)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 20:46:53 +0000

Hi, Xiaohu

The motivate for enabling VRRP, rather than IGP in the real transit
network is to address the following scenarios: 1) two PIM domains in
different subnets (possibly with firewall in between), or 2) in a single
subnet where the provider does not wish to run a routing protocol between
the provider's network and customer networks.

Thanks,
Wei

On 5/23/13 6:56 PM, "Xuxiaohu" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>In a word, the PIM DR and the VRRP master could actually run on the same
>router no matter whatever factor triggers the VRRP switchover, as per the
>above description.
>
>Could you please explain the motivation for enabling VRRP, rather than
>IGP in the real transit network scenario?
>
>> >> >    PIM DR and the VRRP master will always run on an identical
>>router
>> >>if

---

From: Mike McBride <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 00:06:44 -0700

Thank you for the responses.

Some feel the two drafts are completely unrelated while others feel
they are completely related. In either case, are you, who feel they
are related, saying you oppose the adoption of draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-01?
We can infer that is the case but I haven't heard explicitly stated
opposition to adoption. We now have several choices for
draft-zhou-pim-vrrp, let me try boiling it down to 3:

1. adopt draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-01 as is
2. adopt draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-01 only after
draft-xu-pim-drpriority-auto-adjustment is referenced.
3. merge the drafts

In either case the authors should revive the expired
draft-xu-pim-drpriority-auto-adjustment-03 for consideration within
the wg irregardless of vrrp-01 adoption outcome.

What say ye?

mike

---

From: "Wei Zhou (weizho2)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 18:55:35 +0000

Hi,

Thank you all for the comments and thoughts. I believe that the old draft
is about upstream link failures, which is not what the new draft is about.
The new draft is about how to support PIM and VRRP in general instead of
focusing on the object being tracked.

If the WG think the upstream link failure scenario should be discussed in
detail in the new draft, then I'm completely fine with merging. Moreover,
if the new draft is adopted in its current shape, then the WG can always
decide to include the upstream link failure scenario later.

Thanks,
Wei

On 5/31/13 12:06 AM, "Mike McBride" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> It seems that both drafts seem to solve nearly the same problem
>>(multiple routers on the multi-access interface and existence of
>>first-hop redundancy protocols e.g. VRRP).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Rajiv
>>
>>