MSDP 12/11/00 Meeting Minutes
David Meyer    Chair  ([email protected])
Sean McCreary  Scribe ([email protected])

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

You are viewing proxied material from ftp.icm.edu.pl. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.