Skip to main content

Minutes IETF105: pim
minutes-105-pim-00

Meeting Minutes Protocols for IP Multicast (pim) WG
Date and time 2019-07-25 17:30
Title Minutes IETF105: pim
State Active
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2019-08-05

minutes-105-pim-00
WG Status                            Stig/Mike         20     13:30
Discussion of status of different drafts

Implementation requirements?
+different WGs have different policies
+what should PIM WG status be?
+ WGs view: no formal requirements but chairs will ask about implmentations and
encourage responses

draft-ietf-pim-bfd-p2mp-use-case     Greg              15     13:50
Alvaro: Title is “use cases” but actually specifying something?
Alvaro: Draft says it updates but also says it is optional
Toerless: Optional does not mean cannot be update, does it?
Alvaro: Ambiguity about what “update” means.  New tag coming: “amends”, which
implies that the base spec must use this extension.  “Extends” is optional.
“See also” means neither amends or extends  but worth looking at other RFCs.
Toerless: So “amends” means only non-backward compatible changes? Alvaro: Not
necessarily.  But means this change is important enough older docs need to be
revisited.  e.g. if registries are changed. Stig: Already WG document so
rename. Stig: Suggesting ordering of Hello TLVs.  Good to get rid of ordering
dependencies Greg: Will remove ordering requirement Stig: Generically useful
idea, not tied to DR improvement? Greg: Related to issues to be discussed in DR
draft discussion. Stig: Thoughts about WGLC?  Perhaps think about some details
raised.  If work out details before next IETF, last call then. Stig: Follow up
on the list

draft-zhao-pim-igmp-mld-proxy-yang   Hongji            10     14:05
Open issue: IGMP/MLD proxy module should take into account IGMP-MD:
internetowrking function in RFC 8114 Stig: RFC 8114 support?  How many
implementation are there?  Yang model tries to address things common to most
implementations Toerless: Good to know full implications Stig: Should we do
adoption call on the list? Stig: How many people have read? [Only 2 hands]
Stig: We can do adoption call on list.  At least support from 5 different
vendors.

draft-ietf-pim-null-register-packing Ramakrishnan/Stig 10     14:15
Stig: How many people have read draft?
[Only 3 hands]
Stig: Ready for WGLC?  Anyone got any views?  May use WGLC to force people to
read draft.

draft-ramki-igmp-ssm-ranges          Ramakrishnan      15     14:25
Lenny: How widely deployed is use of SSM range other than 232/8
Ramakrishnan: Yep, seen customer doing so.
Nils: Good reason to avoid using range other than 232/8 for SSM.  Strange
behaviour in Linux kernel.  If v2 host with SSM and v3 router, falls back to
232/8 ASM. Solved for moving out of SSM range. Toerless: Reason for
administratively scope multicast? Perhaps do as IGMP extension?  Useful for
pure layer 2. Stig: Useful for mboned document on operational issues with IGMP?
Toerless: Perhaps just describe operational motivation in protocol spec? Stig:
How many people have read draft? [Only 4 hands] Stig: A bit early to do an
adoption call today.  Please read and comment

draft-song-multicast-telemetry       Mike              10     14:40
Mike: Presenting here before requesting slot to present at IPPM at next IETF
Greg: RFC 8321 relevant.  Authors working on p2mp scenarios.  Document in BIER
explaining how it use Mike: Doc cited in draft.  Will look into it Greg: Hybrid
2 Step method in IPPM working group.  Useful and may help alleviate some issues
raised. Mike: OK, may chat after meeting Stig: Reason for postcards so no need
for additional packets needed

draft-liu-pim-mofrr-tilfa            Jingrong          20     14:50
Stig: Specify own address and neighbour’s address.  RFC for router interface,
PIM Hello option.  Router can announce loopback address and ID for each
interface.  Worth considering if it helps Rishabh: RFC for explicit RPF vector
in PIM.  Did you consider extending that RFC?

IGMPv3/MLDv2 bis update              TBD               20     15:10
Lenny:igmpv3 and mlpv2 have lots of stuff in them that no one has used.
lightweight was written as a spec in response to that. What if we determine
that lightweight is a more accurate state of deployment? could that become the
new internet standard. Femi: possibly. first determine details. Toerless: We
need to determine if there is any interoperability issue. We will figure out
through this process if lightweight is the way to go. Lenny: alot of value to
remove unused stuff like exclude mode. I'm working with someone that had to
write an igmp implementation for vlc. Good to determine what is actually
needed. Toerless: We need to pose the proper questions including how to
determine if exclude mode is used. Please review the questions. Cutting down
the software is after the survey. Femi: don't frame the question to get the
answer you want. Stig: the rfc has multiple features, exclude is just one.
everyone should get input. Ask the right questions. Alvaro: Question about
adding stuff. Is there really a lot of other stuff that has been implemented?
Femi: Should we only include things in the rfc? Alvaro: many features that are
not documented. Femi: we have open ended questions. We could add questions like
what features you don't use. Alvaro: team needs to determine if specification
is complete. Needs to balance the internet standard vs adding functionality.
Stig: we can't add stuff can only take stuff away. Alvaro: its safe to take
stuff away but problem is based on what you take away. Alvaro: we are assuming
things right now. Stig: is it useful to determine additiona stuff? Toerless:
effort is to help the progression of igmpv3 or igmpv3 light. stig: we want to
send this survey out soon so let's review. Make sure we ask the right
questions. Toerless: one of the key questions is whom else can we send this to.
Besides internet2, etc. Stig: how will we send it out? pdf? webpage? Toerless:
webpage probably better. Stig: Tim Chown agreed to anonymize the survey again.
We want to send this out before the next ietf.