From stig@venaas.com Tue Oct 2 14:34:50 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73B8821F85F7 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 14:34:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.485 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.744, BAYES_20=-0.74, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wBl4KtZPnHca for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 14:34:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ufisa.uninett.no (ufisa.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2:158:38:152:126]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8CAA21F858F for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 14:34:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:420:301:1004:d587:bd:d4d7:b896] (unknown [IPv6:2001:420:301:1004:d587:bd:d4d7:b896]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6EDA47FDF for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 23:34:46 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <506B5DF0.8000706@venaas.com> Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 14:34:40 -0700 From: Stig Venaas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pim@ietf.org References: <50633E21.3030505@venaas.com> In-Reply-To: <50633E21.3030505@venaas.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [pim] pop-count issue, your input wanted X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 21:34:50 -0000 Not a lot of feedback... On 9/26/2012 10:40 AM, Stig Venaas wrote: > As part of the IESG review of draft-ietf-pim-pop-count-06.txt, > someone questioned that the Transit and Stub oif-List counts are > only 2 octets. > > This means that with pop-count, we currently have a limit on 64k > transit or stub oifs that can be counted for a tree. So if there > are more than 64k hosts, or more than 64k pim routers, we cannot > count them. > > Do you have any thoughts on whether we should extend these to 4 > octets? > > I think the alternatives are more or less these: > > 1. Not change anything, 65535 means 65535 or more oifs. > > 2. Introduce an exponential encoding, allowing larger values than > 65535 but with less precision for large counts. Sort of like > max resp time etc in IGMP/MLD. > > 3. Extend in the future if needed. One could add a new 16 bit > option that is only included if the count is bigger than 64k, > to store additional 16 bits. > > 4. Simply extend to 32 bits. > > The semantics of the 2 could be different. The PIM count is likely > to be smaller than the host count. So stub bigger than transit. But > I suggest keeping them the same. > > Thoughts? I think I'll go for 4, unless anyone has other ideas. Comments welcome. Stig > Stig > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim From eckert@cisco.com Tue Oct 2 16:42:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01C0121F8647 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 16:42:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r+HBk8uxi8X7 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 16:42:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtv-iport-3.cisco.com (mtv-iport-3.cisco.com [173.36.130.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 321A421F853B for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 16:42:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5369; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1349221359; x=1350430959; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=MCZXWelrFRW1TJ1zFIokQk8LC10ynoKtbaMLWfn6Y3M=; b=OhyBVki7Krmx7T8jDt6emFHK38qyHEjRNBVhFXuZGr5BfS5e/dO6nUB9 w/RkVin/AItEfMxpcb56+EQ/ozn8aE/9ShzWmv84KBcnPRC1wm9v+B2BT 4EB70MQEAaOtt+ECtDxk7OIvomuBht538z2JSXipDBOX8I4Gly/gb3r7t E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EAAl7a1CrRDoJ/2dsb2JhbABFvmaBCIIgAQEBAwEBAQEPASc0CwULCxguFBM2EyKHXQUMl3aPVpBDBIsjFYYlA4hYjRABjkKBaYMHgTs X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,525,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="57686629" Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by mtv-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Oct 2012 23:42:38 +0000 Received: from mcast-linux1.cisco.com (mcast-linux1.cisco.com [172.27.244.121]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q92Ngcpb015980 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 2 Oct 2012 23:42:38 GMT Received: from mcast-linux1.cisco.com (mdt-linux4 [127.0.0.1]) by mcast-linux1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q92NgcUL010909; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 16:42:38 -0700 Received: (from eckert@localhost) by mcast-linux1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id q92NgbQY010908; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 16:42:37 -0700 Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 16:42:37 -0700 From: Toerless Eckert To: Stig Venaas Message-ID: <20121002234237.GK15289@cisco.com> References: <50633E21.3030505@venaas.com> <506B5DF0.8000706@venaas.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <506B5DF0.8000706@venaas.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Cc: pim@ietf.org Subject: Re: [pim] pop-count issue, your input wanted X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 23:42:40 -0000 On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 02:34:40PM -0700, Stig Venaas wrote: > Not a lot of feedback... Maybe i am overlooking something, but: I think that in a large tree, the values for the size of the tree are completely useless. Imagine routers with a fan-out of 10 each and a simple tree, eg: you aggregate 10, 100, 1000, 10,000 OIF-entries on the tree. If we look at the last-hop routers, maybe during an observation period of 60 seconds between periodic joins sent upstream you actually have a good amount of zapping activity, so the smallest number of joiners during that period may be 2, and the largest number of joiners may be 8. So, what is this router going to send in the periodic join ? The way i read the text, it may be randomnly the number of joiners at the point in time when it has to send the periodic join. Lets say on each of the leaf routers there is the same joiner behaviors (quite likely for TV), so i end up at the top router with a randomn number between 2,000 and 8,000. And i have no clue at all that this number is even that randomn. It will just randomnly change every 6 seconds (top router aggregation 10 routers with maximum of 1000 joiners below, so this router gets 10 periodic joins every minute. Figuring out the variability over time will take quite a while. Meaning: I would like to see "aggregation of "Max Stub Oif List Count" and "Min Stub Oif List Count". That's IMHO the only way to get an idea about the actual dynamics of the number of joiners. Once we know that the minimum number of joiners is dynamically a lot smaller during an observation period than the maximum, it is also clear that all the other parameters may be varying during the observation period, but we likely want to only know the worst == max value initially, eg i think the text should just change the names of "Domain Count", "Node Count" "Diameter Count", "TZ Count" and "Transit OIF List Count" each to "Max XXX", eg: have them be defined as the max - for Diameter this is already defined. Wrt. to encoding, i think that i like accuracy because there are a lot of deployment that really expect stable large trees and so even a missing single joiner would be lovely to still see at the root of the tree. So i think i prefer a 16/32 bit encoding for max/min Stub Oif List count: 0-16383: 16 bit, when high bit is set, then remaining 31 bits are the value - or something like that. Also: Given how we're still here and this draft is not out the door, i think it would be good to write a paragraph about how to use this with PORT. Should a PORT router also send periodic updates when pop-count is being used ? It could definitely avoid to do that when the Min/Max values are still the same for the last 60 seconds than they where for the prior 60 seconds, but that's of course unlikely. But we could of course introduce another parameter optionally for PORT which is the "Longest Observation Period", and with PIM every router would set it to 60 seconds, and if PORT routers feel the need to have longer observation periods, then this was easily observable at the root of the tree. Of course this would also be useful if any PIM had different periodic intervals than 60 seconds configured, but i think that's unlikely. Last but not least, i would really like to be able to count individual joiners and not only OIF. Can we please define an "E" bit for "Explicit Member counting", and a node setting this is indicating that it is counting individual IGMP/MLD members as an OIF for the "Min/Max Stub OIF-List Count". How the node does that, eg: via integrated IGMP snooping if it's an L2/L3 device, or via IGMP/MLD explicit tracking, is insubstantial. Cheers Toerless > On 9/26/2012 10:40 AM, Stig Venaas wrote: > >As part of the IESG review of draft-ietf-pim-pop-count-06.txt, > >someone questioned that the Transit and Stub oif-List counts are > >only 2 octets. > > > >This means that with pop-count, we currently have a limit on 64k > >transit or stub oifs that can be counted for a tree. So if there > >are more than 64k hosts, or more than 64k pim routers, we cannot > >count them. > > > >Do you have any thoughts on whether we should extend these to 4 > >octets? > > > >I think the alternatives are more or less these: > > > >1. Not change anything, 65535 means 65535 or more oifs. > > > >2. Introduce an exponential encoding, allowing larger values than > > 65535 but with less precision for large counts. Sort of like > > max resp time etc in IGMP/MLD. > > > >3. Extend in the future if needed. One could add a new 16 bit > > option that is only included if the count is bigger than 64k, > > to store additional 16 bits. > > > >4. Simply extend to 32 bits. > > > >The semantics of the 2 could be different. The PIM count is likely > >to be smaller than the host count. So stub bigger than transit. But > >I suggest keeping them the same. > > > >Thoughts? > > I think I'll go for 4, unless anyone has other ideas. Comments welcome. > > Stig > > >Stig > >_______________________________________________ > >pim mailing list > >pim@ietf.org > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim > > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim From stig@venaas.com Wed Oct 3 10:46:41 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 960E721F86B7 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 10:46:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.29 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.29 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.310, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FQuRZc+K-8eI for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 10:46:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ufisa.uninett.no (ufisa.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2:158:38:152:126]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71CD521F8568 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 10:46:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:420:301:1004:d4a1:3de6:1a69:306e] (unknown [IPv6:2001:420:301:1004:d4a1:3de6:1a69:306e]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CE4917FCE; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 19:46:37 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <506C79F6.5060901@venaas.com> Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 10:46:30 -0700 From: Stig Venaas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Toerless Eckert References: <50633E21.3030505@venaas.com> <506B5DF0.8000706@venaas.com> <20121002234237.GK15289@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <20121002234237.GK15289@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: pim@ietf.org Subject: Re: [pim] pop-count issue, your input wanted X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 17:46:41 -0000 Hi On 10/2/2012 4:42 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote: > On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 02:34:40PM -0700, Stig Venaas wrote: >> Not a lot of feedback... > > Maybe i am overlooking something, but: > > I think that in a large tree, the values for the size of the tree are > completely useless. Imagine routers with a fan-out of 10 each and a simple > tree, eg: you aggregate 10, 100, 1000, 10,000 OIF-entries on the > tree. If we look at the last-hop routers, maybe during an observation > period of 60 seconds between periodic joins sent upstream you > actually have a good amount of zapping activity, so the smallest > number of joiners during that period may be 2, and the largest number > of joiners may be 8. > > So, what is this router going to send in the periodic join ? > The way i read the text, it may be randomnly the number of joiners > at the point in time when it has to send the periodic join. Lets > say on each of the leaf routers there is the same joiner behaviors > (quite likely for TV), so i end up at the top router with a randomn > number between 2,000 and 8,000. And i have no clue at all that this > number is even that randomn. It will just randomnly change every > 6 seconds (top router aggregation 10 routers with maximum of 1000 > joiners below, so this router gets 10 periodic joins every minute. > Figuring out the variability over time will take quite a while. I'm not sure what you get the numbers 2 and 8 from, but don't you think that you will get some kind of average. Depending on exactly when the users change channels and when the routers report, you may report some that will leave before the next report, and you miss reporting some that will join before the next report, but wouldn't these details be averaged out? > Meaning: I would like to see "aggregation of "Max Stub Oif List Count" > and "Min Stub Oif List Count". That's IMHO the only way to get an idea > about the actual dynamics of the number of joiners. I agree that could be useful to get some idea of the dynamics, but I don't think we should do this change now. > Once we know that the minimum number of joiners is dynamically a lot > smaller during an observation period than the maximum, it is also > clear that all the other parameters may be varying during the observation > period, but we likely want to only know the worst == max value > initially, eg i think the text should just change the names of If we have min, then max also makes sense. But with what we have now, I prefer the current. > "Domain Count", "Node Count" "Diameter Count", "TZ Count" and > "Transit OIF List Count" each to "Max XXX", eg: have them be defined > as the max - for Diameter this is already defined. > > Wrt. to encoding, i think that i like accuracy because there are a > lot of deployment that really expect stable large trees and so > even a missing single joiner would be lovely to still see at the > root of the tree. So i think i prefer a 16/32 bit encoding for > max/min Stub Oif List count: 0-16383: 16 bit, when high bit is set, > then remaining 31 bits are the value - or something like that. Are you OK with just using 32 bits? This is simpler since there is no variable length. > Also: Given how we're still here and this draft is not out the door, The draft is pretty much done. It passed last call and we're only doing minimal changes based on the IESG/directorate reviews. The only protocol change we need to consider IMO is the size of the 2 above defined fields. I would suggest getting this out the door ASAP. Once we have some implementations and experiences, we can consider adding some new fields/options if needed. > i think it would be good to write a paragraph about how to use this > with PORT. Should a PORT router also send periodic updates when > pop-count is being used ? It could definitely avoid to do that > when the Min/Max values are still the same for the last 60 seconds > than they where for the prior 60 seconds, but that's of course unlikely. Can we delay this until we see actual deployments? Your comments seem reasonable though. > But we could of course introduce another parameter optionally for > PORT which is the "Longest Observation Period", and with PIM every > router would set it to 60 seconds, and if PORT routers feel the need > to have longer observation periods, then this was easily observable > at the root of the tree. Of course this would also be useful if > any PIM had different periodic intervals than 60 seconds configured, > but i think that's unlikely. > > Last but not least, i would really like to be able to count individual > joiners and not only OIF. Can we please define an "E" bit for > "Explicit Member counting", and a node setting this is indicating > that it is counting individual IGMP/MLD members as an OIF for the > "Min/Max Stub OIF-List Count". How the node does that, eg: via > integrated IGMP snooping if it's an L2/L3 device, or via IGMP/MLD > explicit tracking, is insubstantial. You wold also do this if there is a host on a point-to-point interface then I assume? I agree it could be useful. My take on this though is that this draft is finally practically done after 8 years! This has been painful enough, and I would like to defer any extensions until we have some experience with deploying this one and we see the need. This is just my view as an author though. It depends on what the WG thinks. I'll post a version with the changes based on the IESG review shortly. Then we can see what you and the rest of the WG thinks. Stig > Cheers > Toerless > >> On 9/26/2012 10:40 AM, Stig Venaas wrote: >>> As part of the IESG review of draft-ietf-pim-pop-count-06.txt, >>> someone questioned that the Transit and Stub oif-List counts are >>> only 2 octets. >>> >>> This means that with pop-count, we currently have a limit on 64k >>> transit or stub oifs that can be counted for a tree. So if there >>> are more than 64k hosts, or more than 64k pim routers, we cannot >>> count them. >>> >>> Do you have any thoughts on whether we should extend these to 4 >>> octets? >>> >>> I think the alternatives are more or less these: >>> >>> 1. Not change anything, 65535 means 65535 or more oifs. >>> >>> 2. Introduce an exponential encoding, allowing larger values than >>> 65535 but with less precision for large counts. Sort of like >>> max resp time etc in IGMP/MLD. >>> >>> 3. Extend in the future if needed. One could add a new 16 bit >>> option that is only included if the count is bigger than 64k, >>> to store additional 16 bits. >>> >>> 4. Simply extend to 32 bits. >>> >>> The semantics of the 2 could be different. The PIM count is likely >>> to be smaller than the host count. So stub bigger than transit. But >>> I suggest keeping them the same. >>> >>> Thoughts? >> >> I think I'll go for 4, unless anyone has other ideas. Comments welcome. >> >> Stig >> >>> Stig >>> _______________________________________________ >>> pim mailing list >>> pim@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pim mailing list >> pim@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Oct 4 14:47:07 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C487911E8103; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 14:47:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.493 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.493 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.106, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XdIOtqMuEV3T; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 14:47:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F79621F8648; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 14:47:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.34 Message-ID: <20121004214707.2002.61951.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 14:47:07 -0700 Cc: pim@ietf.org Subject: [pim] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pim-pop-count-07.txt X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 21:47:07 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Protocol Independent Multicast Working Gr= oup of the IETF. Title : Population Count Extensions to PIM Author(s) : Dino Farinacci Greg Shepherd Stig Venaas Yiqun Cai Filename : draft-ietf-pim-pop-count-07.txt Pages : 20 Date : 2012-10-04 Abstract: This specification defines a method for providing multicast distribution-tree accounting data. Simple extensions to the PIM protocol allow a rough approximation of tree-based data in a scalable fashion. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-pop-count There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pim-pop-count-07 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-pim-pop-count-07 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From stig@venaas.com Thu Oct 4 15:00:04 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BDCA21F84A0 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 15:00:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.334 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.334 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.266, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BgQ+GCrJkT3b for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 15:00:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ufisa.uninett.no (ufisa.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2:158:38:152:126]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED4A121F8491 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 15:00:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:420:301:1004:a866:a5e4:164a:819d] (unknown [IPv6:2001:420:301:1004:a866:a5e4:164a:819d]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2DAAF7FD1; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 00:00:01 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <506E06DB.2080801@venaas.com> Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 14:59:55 -0700 From: Stig Venaas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pim@ietf.org References: <20121004214707.2002.61951.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20121004214707.2002.61951.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [pim] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pim-pop-count-07.txt X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 22:00:04 -0000 I just submitted a new revision of the pop-count draft. I've attempted to address the comments received by the IESG and directorate reviewers. Please see the diff for the changes. I believe the only significant change is that I extended stub and transit oif counts from 16 to 32 bits (per my emails to the wg a few days ago). Please have a look and respond to the list if you have any concerns regarding the changes. Stig On 10/4/2012 2:47 PM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Protocol Independent Multicast Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Population Count Extensions to PIM > Author(s) : Dino Farinacci > Greg Shepherd > Stig Venaas > Yiqun Cai > Filename : draft-ietf-pim-pop-count-07.txt > Pages : 20 > Date : 2012-10-04 > > Abstract: > This specification defines a method for providing multicast > distribution-tree accounting data. Simple extensions to the PIM > protocol allow a rough approximation of tree-based data in a scalable > fashion. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-pop-count > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pim-pop-count-07 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pim-pop-count-07 > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > pim mailing list > pim@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim > From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Mon Oct 8 07:19:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF13721F87B8; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 07:19:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.49 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.49 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.109, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id My3lHbCaBN8Q; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 07:19:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DD6A21F87D1; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 07:19:14 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.34 Message-ID: <20121008141914.21866.81697.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 07:19:14 -0700 Cc: pim chair , pim mailing list , RFC Editor Subject: [pim] Document Action: 'Population Count Extensions to PIM' to Experimental RFC (draft-ietf-pim-pop-count-07.txt) X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 14:19:15 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Population Count Extensions to PIM' (draft-ietf-pim-pop-count-07.txt) as Experimental RFC This document is the product of the Protocol Independent Multicast Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Adrian Farrel and Stewart Bryant. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-pop-count/ Technical Summary This specification defines a method for providing multicast distribution-tree accounting data. Simple extensions to the PIM protocol allow a rough approximation of tree-based data in a scalable fashion. Working Group Summary There is consensus within the PIM WG to publish this document. The document has been actively discussed on the wg list and in wg meetings. There was no controversy with the progression of this document. As is common for protocol extensions in the PIM working group, this document is introduced as Experimental. It is anticipated that the work will be brought to the Standards Track if it gains traction and if experimental deployment shows value and stability. Document Quality There are currently no know implementations. Mike McBride (mmcbride7@gmail.com) is the document shepherd. Adrian Farrel (adrian@olddog.co.uk) is the responsible AD. From stig@venaas.com Mon Oct 15 10:12:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC3E011E80FA for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 10:12:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.623 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.623 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.512, BAYES_05=-1.11, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j5CjvNOmZkpb for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 10:12:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ufisa.uninett.no (ufisa.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2:158:38:152:126]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17A1211E80F7 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 10:12:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:420:301:1004:155b:c347:df56:7c28] (unknown [IPv6:2001:420:301:1004:155b:c347:df56:7c28]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B2F9C7FCF; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 19:12:25 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <507C43F3.5010209@venaas.com> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 10:12:19 -0700 From: Stig Venaas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "pim@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "pim-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: [pim] Request for Atlanta agenda items X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:12:28 -0000 If you would like a slot on the pim agenda for Atlanta, please email Mike and me with your request ASAP. Note that you can email us both by using the pim-chairs@tools.ietf.org address. Stig From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Oct 15 23:08:56 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8102121F86F7; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 23:08:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.563 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.563 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.036, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O3xRC1S-YW4k; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 23:08:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F76B21F86B6; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 23:08:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.34 Message-ID: <20121016060831.29936.32618.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 23:08:31 -0700 Cc: pim@ietf.org Subject: [pim] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-02.txt X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 06:08:57 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Protocol Independent Multicast Working Gr= oup of the IETF. Title : IGMP/MLD-Based Explicit Membership Tracking Function for= Multicast Routers Author(s) : Hitoshi Asaeda Nicolai Leymann Filename : draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-02.txt Pages : 10 Date : 2012-10-15 Abstract: This document describes the IGMP/MLD-based explicit membership tracking function for multicast routers. The explicit tracking function is useful for accounting and contributes to saving network resource and fast leaves (i.e. shortened leave latency). The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-02 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-02 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From asaeda@sfc.wide.ad.jp Thu Oct 18 02:13:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BF7F21F85ED for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 02:13:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.096 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RELAY_IS_203=0.994, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EeS1OPV39Qje for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 02:13:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (shonan.sfc.wide.ad.jp [203.178.142.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93AD621F85EF for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 02:13:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [202.249.37.10]) by mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 193712780B0 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 18:13:02 +0900 (JST) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 18:13:10 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20121018.181310.230121425.asaeda@sfc.wide.ad.jp> To: pim@ietf.org From: Hitoshi Asaeda In-Reply-To: <507C43F3.5010209@venaas.com> References: <507C43F3.5010209@venaas.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.3 on Emacs 22.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [pim] Request for Atlanta agenda items X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:13:08 -0000 Hello folks, In the upcoming meeting, I'll present the following two drafts. 1. Explicit tracking draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-02 2. Multiple upstream interfaces support for IGMP/MLD proxy draft-asaeda-pim-mldproxy-multif-00 The draft defining the explicit tracking function was presented several times and this revision clearly describes the default set (turning off) for the function of eliminating specific query upon state change report reception, according to the concensus of the last meeting. At the next meeting I may ask the document category (again) and the condition whether it's ready for WGLC to the group. The second draft, "Multiple upstream interfaces support for IGMP/MLD proxy", is a new draft, which provides a simple extension for IGMP/ MLD proxy to support multiple upstream interfaces by manual configuration. Please take a look at the document. Regards, -- Hitoshi Asaeda From stig@venaas.com Fri Oct 19 14:25:13 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F03121F879B for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 14:25:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.339 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.339 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.260, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RSb21lgYpo8n for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 14:25:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ufisa.uninett.no (ufisa.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2:158:38:152:126]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DADD21F8872 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 14:25:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.33.12.93] (128-107-239-233.cisco.com [128.107.239.233]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 25FB37FCD for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 23:25:05 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <5081C52F.7000609@venaas.com> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 14:25:03 -0700 From: Stig Venaas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "pim@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [pim] Draft pim agenda for IETF 85 X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 21:25:13 -0000 Below is the draft agenda so far. Please let me know if anything needs to be updated, or if you want a slot. Apologies if I missed anyone. We still have about 40 minutes spare. pim wg meeting Monday November 5, 2012 13-15 WG Status Stig/Mike 10 4601 update ? 10 draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-01 Hitoshi Asaeda 10 draft-liu-multimob-igmp-mld-wireless-mobile-02 Mike McBride 10 draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-00 Stig Venaas 20 draft-asaeda-pim-mldproxy-multif-00 Hitoshi Asaeda 10 draft-contreras-multimob-multiple-upstreams-00 Luis M. Contreras / Carlos J. Bernardos 10 From stig@venaas.com Mon Oct 22 11:53:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB54821F8525 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:53:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.363 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.363 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.236, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AEHGj5lhph0A for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:53:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ufisa.uninett.no (ufisa.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2:158:38:152:126]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0C4C21F88DC for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:53:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.33.12.93] (128-107-239-234.cisco.com [128.107.239.234]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 38E317FF6 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 20:53:21 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <5085961F.9080900@venaas.com> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:53:19 -0700 From: Stig Venaas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pim@ietf.org References: <5081C52F.7000609@venaas.com> In-Reply-To: <5081C52F.7000609@venaas.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [pim] Draft pim agenda for IETF 85 X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 18:53:24 -0000 I've updated the agenda with an additional item. Here is the latest now. We still have 30 minutes left, so we still have room for additional items, or we'll allow more time than specified for the below items as needed. pim wg meeting Monday November 5, 2012 13-15 Title Presenter Minutes ========================================================================== WG Status Stig/Mike 10 4601 update Stig? 10 draft-ietf-pim-explicit-tracking-01 Hitoshi Asaeda 10 draft-liu-multimob-igmp-mld-wireless-mobile-02 Mike McBride 10 draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-00 Stig Venaas 20 draft-asghar-pim-explicit-rpf-vector-00 IJsbrand Wijnands 10 draft-asaeda-pim-mldproxy-multif-00 Hitoshi Asaeda 10 draft-contreras-multimob-multiple-upstreams-00 Carlos J. Bernardos 10 From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org Wed Oct 24 15:43:04 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB21621F8B8A; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 15:43:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.878 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.878 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.122, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 29tM4Sbq07rl; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 15:43:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D7AA21F8ACD; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 15:43:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 985BB72E038; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 15:37:20 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20121024223720.985BB72E038@rfc-editor.org> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 15:37:20 -0700 (PDT) Cc: pim@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [pim] RFC 6754 on Protocol Independent Multicast Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) Redirect X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 22:43:05 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 6754 Title: Protocol Independent Multicast Equal-Cost Multipath (ECMP) Redirect Author: Y. Cai, L. Wei, H. Ou, V. Arya, S. Jethwani Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: October 2012 Mailbox: yiqunc@microsoft.com, lwei@cisco.com, hou@cisco.com, varya@directv.com, sjethwani@directv.com Pages: 12 Characters: 24599 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-pim-ecmp-05.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6754.txt A Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) router uses the Reverse Path Forwarding (RPF) procedure to select an upstream interface and router in order to build forwarding state. When there are equal cost multipaths (ECMPs), existing implementations often use hash algorithms to select a path. Such algorithms do not allow the spread of traffic among the ECMPs according to administrative metrics. This usually leads to inefficient or ineffective use of network resources. This document introduces the ECMP Redirect, a mechanism to improve the RPF procedure over ECMPs. It allows ECMP selection to be based on administratively selected metrics, such as data transmission delays, path preferences, and routing metrics. [STANDARDS-TRACK] This document is a product of the Protocol Independent Multicast Working Group of the IETF. This is now a Proposed Standard Protocol. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community,and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Internet Official Protocol Standards (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC From stig@venaas.com Wed Oct 31 14:44:01 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B85421F87D4 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:44:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZVlhJ2sM7MoI for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:44:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ufisa.uninett.no (ufisa.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2:158:38:152:126]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2B5221F87BB for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:44:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.33.12.93] (128-107-239-233.cisco.com [128.107.239.233]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 70C2C7FF4; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 22:43:58 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <50919B97.6040305@venaas.com> Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:43:51 -0700 From: Stig Venaas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pim@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "pim-chairs@tools.ietf.org" Subject: [pim] Slides for IETF 85 pim meeting X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 21:44:01 -0000 Hi, we're meeting already on Monday. If you're presenting, please emails your slides to Mike and me so that we can upload them. Please do this by Friday so that people can get a chance to look at them before the meeting. Stig