PIM Designated Router Load Balancing
RFC 8775
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 13 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana Yes
Roman Danyliw No Objection
I support Ben Kaduk's DISCUSS position.
Warren Kumari No Objection
Thank you for this document -- I found it easy to read and helpful. I'd note that the document has 6 authors instead of the "recommended" 5 -- I don't care, just noting it. Also, please see the OpsDir review ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-pim-drlb-13-opsdir-lc-clarke-2019-10-30/ ) for some useful editorial fixes.
Éric Vyncke No Objection
Thank you for the work put into this document. The short document is easy to read. I have one COMMENT and one NIT below, feel free to ignore them. Regards, -éric == COMMENT == -- Section 5.1 -- Some more explanations about "These default values are likely acceptable" would be welcome. == NIT == -- Section 1 -- s/ on behalf of any local members/on behalf of all local members/ ?
(Adam Roach; former steering group member) No Objection
Please consider formatting IPv6 address as per the recommendations in RFC 5952, and section 4.3 of that document (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5952#section-4.3) in particular.
(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection
(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection
Some very minor comments: Please expand “PIM-SM” on first use in both the Abstract and the Introduction. This allows the forwarding of multicast packets to be restricted only to segments leading to receivers who have indicated their interest in multicast groups using either IGMP or MLD. Nit: Let’s not personify our devices: please change “who” to “that”. However, if there was a way that allowed multiple routers to forward to the LAN for different groups, failure of one of the Nit: “if there were a way”, subjunctive mood with a conditional. — Section 3 — The extension specified in this document applies to PIM-SM when they act as last hop routers (there are directly connected receivers). I can’t find the antecedent to “they”; what is it? It looks like it’s “PIM-SM”, but that’s not something that can be “they”, is it? Maybe you mean to say “PIM-SM routers”? — Section 4 — For each multicast flow, that is, (*,G) for ASM and (S,G) for SSM, a Hash Algorithm is used to select one of the routers to be the GDR. “Hash Algorithm” might do well to include a forward reference to Section 5.1.
(Benjamin Kaduk; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Thank you for the updates that address my original Discuss points! At the time of this writing, we're still having a little more discussion in email about some of the specifics of the 32-bit masking procedure, but it seems unlikely to cause problems in practice, and the algorithm selection allows for a fix to be made in the future without needing changes at present (provided that the procedure to apply the mask is clearly specified).
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection
(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection
(Martin Vigoureux; former steering group member) No Objection
(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection
Please have a look at the TSV-ART review, there is an editorial suggestion that might be worth considering (and thanks Michael for the TSV-ART review!).
(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) No Objection