[AG-TECH] Fwd: Draft MSDP Minutes
Bill Nickless
nickless at mcs.anl.gov
Thu Dec 21 14:34:04 CST 2000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
For those of you wondering about Internet IP Multicast deployment, here are
the minutes from the IETF MSDP Working Group meeting.
I may be reading too much into these minutes, but it appears that MSDP is
being put on track to standardization, which can only help assure the
availability of IP multicast service as we use it today in the Access
Grid. I see recognition in the MSDP Working Group minutes below that both
MSDP and SSM are useful and needed, which is exactly the result I would
hope for.
Earlier today I sent a note to the MSDP mailing list that I felt moving
MSDP to standards and Best Current Practice status was appropriate and
useful to support the Access Grid application.
>Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 12:14:55 -0800 (PST)
>From: David Meyer <dmm at cisco.com>
>To: msdp at network-services.uoregon.edu
>cc: minutes at ietf.org, dmm at cisco.com
>Subject: Draft MSDP Minutes
>X-Archive: ftp://ns.uoregon.edu/mailing-lists/msdp.archive
>
>
>MSDP 12/11/00 Meeting Minutes
>David Meyer Chair (dmm at cisco.com)
>Sean McCreary Scribe (mccreary at colorado.edu)
>
>
>Maddogs update from Dave Meyer
>
> Meeting consensus from 12/10 is that BGMP for IPv4 isn't going
> to happen
>
> Bill Fenner: It won't be implemented unless current solution
> fails to meet demand
>
> Dave: No way to collect data on how much SSM is in use
> Must be on path from sender to receiver to see any traffic
> MSDP isn't needed to establish SSM distribution trees
> So MSDP doesn't need to scale up as much as for ISM
>
> Near-term solution for IPv4 inter-domain multicast is MSDP and SSM
> Dave asked for anyone to object to this statement, no one did
> He declared rough consensus on this point
>
> MSDP was originally implemented to provide anycast-RP for PM-SM
> It has now been adopted as a longer-term interdomain multicast
> routing protocol
> BGMP will not be required in the forseeable future.
>
> Dave Thaler asked about MSDP implementation for IPv6
>
> Dave Meyer:
> No current work in progress
> Maybe should find another way to do RP redundancy in IPv6
>
> Dave Thaler said the protocol has nothing that would prevent an IPv6
> implementation
>
> Rough consensus: MSDP for IPv6 is dead
>
> Tom Pusateri: Can the PIM working group decide to use MSDP for IPv6?
> Dave Meyer: If they decide to do this, the MSDP WG will work on it
>
> Question: Operational overhead of running BGMP and MSDP in
> parallel is
> prohibitive
> Don't want different inter-domain protocol for IPv4 and IPv6
>
> Tom Pusateri: IETF role is to come up with the best solution
> Customers can ask vendors for specific solutions outside of
> the IETF process
>
>
>MSDP draft disposition (02 vs. 06)
>
> Dave asked for current implementations of MSDP
> Cisco
> Juniper
> Lucent
> NEC
> BT
>
> Current deployment is 02, 06 is current draft status
> 02 should move to RFC w/historic classification
> 06 should move to RFC w/experimental classification
>
> Bill Fenner would like sanity-check of peer-RPF rules he added before
> the drafts are moved to RFCs
>
> Problem: No one is implementing 06, and at IETF 48 decision was
> made to ignore differences between 02 draft and current
> implementation as MSDP was `temporary'
>
> Tom: Need to document differences between 02 and currently deployed
> implementations, especially hold-down
>
> Dave: 02 captures what is deployed better than any other draft
> If we make a new rev, would it include peer-RPF?
>
> Bill Fenner: The rules in 02 are how MSDP is implemented in
> Cisco IOS
> However, these rules allow loops
> Loops are unbreakable and difficult to find in current
> implementations
>
> Tom: With holddown, the amount of control traffic generated by loops
> is low enough that it doesn't present an operational
> problem.
>
> Question: Why not go to standards track if MSDP is forever?
>
> Question: We need a draft describing current MSDP implementations
> so we can understand exactly what is under discussion
>
> Bill Fenner: 06 would be good to use as a base for this discussion
>
> Dave called for consensus on moving 06 to experimental RFC
> Audience approved
>
> Dave called for consensus on moving 02 to historic RFC
> Audience approved
>
> Dave noted that a previous snag to moving MSDP to standards track
> was that GRE was published as an informational RFC
> This has changed (GRE is undergoing standardization)
>
>Bill Fenner gave an update on the MSDP MIB
>
> He has an unpublished version with changes to support IPv6 addresses
> Current efforts are underway to implement currently published version
> w/only IPv4 address support
> Perhaps the changes to support IPv6 are unnecessary?
>
> Question: Using INET ENDPOINT identifiers won't hurt anything
> Will make MIB more general
> IESG is adamant about all new MIBs use INET ENDPOINT
> identifiers
>
> No implementers were present in the room
>
> Bill asked if the new MIB should be published with IPv6 support
> Audience approved
>
>02 -> 06 Transition document
> Needs to reflect changed status of MSDP, to permanent inter-domain
> multicast routing protocol for IPv4
>
>MSDP traceroute
>
> Bill: It would be really nice to have, not worth blocking
> progress to
> complete
>
> Rob: Why not use SNMP to gather data from routers along distribution
> tree rather than writing a new protocol
>
> Dave Thaler: SNMP is only meant for data gathering within a single
> administrative domain
>
> Bill: We want arbitrary users to be able to perform MSDP traceroutes
> Don't want access-control model of SNMP
> SNMP would only be used to initiate traceroute, not for
> queries between routers
>
> Other than initiation protocol, there isn't that much left to
> do on the MSDP traceroute spec
>
> Dave: MSDP debugging currently requires manual analysis of SA state
> hop-by-hop
> A traceroute protocol would be very helpful
>
>MSDP-specific forwarding extensions (MSDP-FE)
> presentation by Masahiro Jibiki
>
> NEC's implementation of MSDP is based on 06 draft
>
> He requested that new packet types be added to the 06 draft
> and that the draft be accepted as a working group document
>
> Dave deferred both points to discussion on the mailing list
===
Bill Nickless http://www.mcs.anl.gov/people/nickless +1 630 252 7390
PGP:0E 0F 16 80 C5 B1 69 52 E1 44 1A A5 0E 1B 74 F7 nickless at mcs.anl.gov
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQCVAwUBOkJpPKwgm7ipJDXBAQE2SgP9F/BinOCX94zoTQRcP4z8j+i8Q5N9yCew
jZNJO8fmLhP2MiTCotygMqtm6OeJRyLqhCyGa78iH7+DavW4fr80iBAF6iUlTSp9
yWs1MlxYwJCbt6Czb+j3d36OuEmJxzQsRjIyC4pHyRAj2oY2YLx1avAusuouOt6R
zye9N8fF/jE=
=+AGQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the ag-tech
mailing list