1 / 7

RFC 4601 Revision

This document outlines proposed advancements to the Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) specification, aimed at achieving Draft Standard status. It addresses existing errata and discusses the removal of certain optional features that lack interoperable implementations. Highlights include a review of all errata, an evaluation of successful deployment experiences, and proposed milestones for drafts leading up to the Quebec meeting. Notable features discussed for removal include (*,* ,RP) and group-to-RP mapping. Community feedback will be sought to gather opinions on these changes. ###

melvyn
Télécharger la présentation

RFC 4601 Revision

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RFC 4601 Revision 81th IETF, Quebec Rishabh Parekh Jeffrey Zhang Vero Zheng

  2. Motivation • Advance PIM specification to Draft Standard • Address Errata • Remove optional features that lack: • Interoperable implementations • Successful deployment experiences

  3. Presented in Prague Meeting • All errata had been reviewed • No real technical issues • Clarifications, editorial, keyword changes needed • Candidate feature-to-be-removed discussed and narrowed down to: • (*, *, RP) • Group-to-RP mapping • Milestones • Draft -00 end of April, addresses errata • Draft -0x before Quebec meeting, removes certain features

  4. Current Status • Errata addressed in draft-parekh-pim-rfc4601bis-00 • Features removed in -01: • (*, *, RP) • Positive response and no objection on mailing list • PMBR related sections and appendices • (*, *, RP) is the foundation for PMBR • Group-to-RP mapping kept: • Was going to remove, and refer to RFC 6226 • That would cause a down-ref problem • Draft Standard referring to a Proposed Standard

  5. No more PMBR functionality? • Somewhat drastic even to us • No more mentioning of border router at all • Is really justified after some pondering: • No major vendors implemented (*,*,RP), which is the foundation of PMBR as described in RFC 4601 and RFC 2715 • Only documented (RFC 4602) implementation is XORP (open source) • Deployment experience? • MSDP is typically used for inter-sparse-domain • Some proprietary mechanisms for downstream dense domains • Instead of relying on (*,*,RP) & PMBR

  6. Other minor changes in -01 • Some keywords • Removed a redundant “CouldAssert” condition in (S,G) assert state machine • In case of “receiving inferior assert at NI” • “Cancels the (S,G) Assert Timer” -> “Expires …” • Summary of Assert Rules and Rationale, #6 • Do not attempt to aid SSM-unaware legacy routers • Section 4.8.1, SSM rules • Appendix B (Index) removed

  7. Next Steps • WG adoption? • Survey, review & feedback, especially on features to be removed: • (*,*,RP) & PMBR ok? • Any others?

More Related