Skip to main content

Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) over Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS)
draft-ietf-pals-vpls-pim-snooping-06

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2017-09-08
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2017-08-04
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2017-07-24
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from AUTH
2017-07-21
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH from EDIT
2017-06-28
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC
2017-06-28
06 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2017-06-28
06 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2017-06-28
06 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2017-06-28
06 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed
2017-06-28
06 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2017-06-28
06 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2017-06-28
06 Cindy Morgan Ballot writeup was changed
2017-06-28
06 Deborah Brungard Ballot approval text was changed
2017-06-13
06 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2017-06-13
06 Olivier Dornon New version available: draft-ietf-pals-vpls-pim-snooping-06.txt
2017-06-13
06 (System) New version approved
2017-06-13
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Zhaohui Zhang , Olivier Dornon , Jayant Kotalwar , Venu Hemige , Ray Qiu
2017-06-13
06 Olivier Dornon Uploaded new revision
2017-06-08
05 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation - Defer
2017-06-08
05 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2017-06-07
05 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2017-06-07
05 Warren Kumari
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for a useful document -- I have a few editorial comments which I think will make the document more readable, and …
[Ballot comment]
Thank you for a useful document -- I have a few editorial comments which I think will make the document more readable, and so even more useful...

Please also see the OpsDir comments (which also have some minor editorial nits): https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-pals-vpls-pim-snooping-05-opsdir-lc-pignataro-2017-05-10/

My comments:
S 1.  Introduction
O: .  Forwarding Information Base for a VPLS instance is  populated dynamically by MAC address learning.
P: . The  Forwarding Information Base (FIB) for a VPLS instance is populated dynamically by MAC address learning.
C: Was missing a "The".  Also, might be worth unexpanding "Forwarding Information Base" (sorry, so used to asking people to expand acronyms, feels odd to suggest the you also include the acronym, but might be helpful for people who know the term FIB, but not the expansion :-)).

O: "While this document is in the context of VPLS, the procedures apply  to regular layer-2 switches interconnected by physical connections as well, albeit this is outside of the scope of this document.  In that case, the PW related concept/procedures are not applicable and that’s all."
P: "These procedures also apply to regular layer-2 switches interconnected by physical connections, but further discussion is out of scope for this document.
C: The original sentence was clunky. I think that the proposed still covers the salient points, but is easier to read. The "and that's all" in the original also seemed weird.

O: "Notice that traffic is always sent on ports that have point-to-point connections to routers that are attached to a LAN on which there is a router."
C: Err...  "... routers that are attached to a LAN on which there is a router." If the router is attached to a LAN, then there is a router on the LAN. I'm presuming that you mean "routers that are attached to a LAN on which there is a another router." or "at least one other router"? "If we had some eggs, we could have eggs and bacon, if we had some bacon..." :-)

O: "Unless explicitly noted, the procedures in this document are used for either PIM snooping or PIM proxying, and we will largely refer to PIM snooping in this document."
P: "We will use the term PIM snooping in this document; but, unless explicitly noted, the procedures in this document apply equally to PIM snooping and PIM proxying".
C: I had to read the original a few times, I *think* that my proposed is clearer, but might be wrong...
2017-06-07
05 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari
2017-06-07
05 Adam Roach
[Ballot comment]
My understanding is that the upcoming change to move from RFC 4601 to RFC 7761 makes section 2.3.3 no longer relevant. I presume …
[Ballot comment]
My understanding is that the upcoming change to move from RFC 4601 to RFC 7761 makes section 2.3.3 no longer relevant. I presume it will be removed?

Editorial nit: section 2.4.1 uses the abbreviation "J/P" without defining it. Suggest expanding.
2017-06-07
05 Adam Roach [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adam Roach
2017-06-07
05 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2017-06-07
05 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov
2017-06-06
05 Alvaro Retana
[Ballot comment]
[Thanks for the extra time to look at this document.]

Please address the point about conflict resolution with respect to the RPF Vector/Join …
[Ballot comment]
[Thanks for the extra time to look at this document.]

Please address the point about conflict resolution with respect to the RPF Vector/Join Attributes from Stig Venaas' review [1].


[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/fpBjO5ii3IHWWc3923S3jXkT7IY/?qid=5b6c7062767cb7bec8ecdd8bce20a729
2017-06-06
05 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2017-06-06
05 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2017-06-06
05 Kathleen Moriarty
[Ballot comment]
Can I see the version that addresses the SecDir review comments?  The mail thread showed agreement that they were all legitimate concerns, but …
[Ballot comment]
Can I see the version that addresses the SecDir review comments?  The mail thread showed agreement that they were all legitimate concerns, but the draft was not updated yet to fix these concerns with the text.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-pals-vpls-pim-snooping-05-secdir-lc-housley-2017-05-11/

Thanks.
2017-06-06
05 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2017-06-06
05 Suresh Krishnan [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan
2017-05-24
05 Ben Campbell
[Ballot comment]
[This was deferred from the May 24 telechat while I was in the act of reviewing it :-) I'm not sure if my …
[Ballot comment]
[This was deferred from the May 24 telechat while I was in the act of reviewing it :-) I'm not sure if my comments will be relevant, but I will enter them anyway since I have them.]

- The shepherd report describes why this is not PS. Was BCP considered? If people don't think this is appropriate as a BCP, it would be good to include comments about whether we expect people to adopt these practices. (Keeping in mind that an informational draft explicitly does not comprise such a recommendation.)

-4: I think the security considerations need more, well, consideration. For example, could an attacker use this method to deny service, or to force traffic to follow a compromised path?

Editorial:

-1.1: "  Notice that traffic is always sent on ports that have point-to-point
  connections to routers that are attached to a LAN on which there is a
  router."
That seems like a circular statement.  ("... connected to routers that are attached to a LAN on which there is a router.")
2017-05-24
05 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2017-05-24
05 Alvaro Retana Telechat date has been changed to 2017-06-08 from 2017-05-25
2017-05-24
05 Alvaro Retana IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation - Defer from IESG Evaluation
2017-05-24
05 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2017-05-24
05 Mirja Kühlewind [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind
2017-05-20
05 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup
2017-05-20
05 Deborah Brungard Ballot has been issued
2017-05-20
05 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2017-05-20
05 Deborah Brungard Created "Approve" ballot
2017-05-20
05 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was changed
2017-05-19
05 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2017-05-15
05 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2017-05-15
05 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-pals-vpls-pim-snooping-05.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-pals-vpls-pim-snooping-05.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist
PTI
2017-05-14
05 Brian Carpenter Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Brian Carpenter. Sent review to list.
2017-05-11
05 Russ Housley Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Russ Housley. Sent review to list.
2017-05-11
05 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Russ Housley
2017-05-11
05 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Russ Housley
2017-05-10
05 Carlos Pignataro Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro. Sent review to list.
2017-05-09
05 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter
2017-05-09
05 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Brian Carpenter
2017-05-09
05 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro
2017-05-09
05 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Carlos Pignataro
2017-05-05
05 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2017-05-05
05 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: db3546@att.com, agmalis@gmail.com, pals-chairs@ietf.org, Andrew Malis , pals@ietf.org, …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: db3546@att.com, agmalis@gmail.com, pals-chairs@ietf.org, Andrew Malis , pals@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pals-vpls-pim-snooping@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) over Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS)) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Pseudowire And LDP-enabled
Services WG (pals) to consider the following document:
- 'Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) over Virtual Private LAN Service
  (VPLS)'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-05-19. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes the procedures and recommendations for
  Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Provider Edges (PEs) to facilitate
  replication of multicast traffic to only certain ports (behind which
  there are interested Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) routers
  and/or Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) hosts) via Protocol
  Independent Multicast (PIM) snooping and proxying.

  With PIM snooping, PEs passively listen to certain PIM control
  messages to build control and forwarding states while transparently
  flooding those messages.  With PIM proxying, Provider Edges (PEs) do
  not flood PIM Join/Prune messages but only generate their own and
  send out of certain ports, based on the control states built from
  downstream Join/Prune messages.  PIM proxying is required when PIM
  Join suppression is enabled on the Customer Equipment (CE) devices
  and useful to reduce PIM control traffic in a VPLS domain.

  The document also describes PIM relay, which can be viewed as light-
  weight proxying, where all downstream Join/Prune messages are simply
  forwarded out of certain ports but not flooded to avoid triggering
  PIM Join suppression on CE devices.





The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-vpls-pim-snooping/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-vpls-pim-snooping/ballot/

The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2366/





2017-05-05
05 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2017-05-05
05 Deborah Brungard Placed on agenda for telechat - 2017-05-25
2017-05-05
05 Deborah Brungard Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2017-05-05
05 Deborah Brungard Last call was requested
2017-05-05
05 Deborah Brungard Ballot approval text was generated
2017-05-05
05 Deborah Brungard Ballot writeup was generated
2017-05-05
05 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Expert Review
2017-05-05
05 Deborah Brungard Last call announcement was generated
2017-04-03
05 Olivier Dornon New version available: draft-ietf-pals-vpls-pim-snooping-05.txt
2017-04-03
05 (System) New version approved
2017-04-03
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Ray Qiu , Olivier Dornon , Zhaohui Zhang , pals-chairs@ietf.org, Venu Hemige , Jayant Kotalwar
2017-04-03
05 Olivier Dornon Uploaded new revision
2017-03-12
04 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: He Jia.
2017-02-24
04 Deborah Brungard Jia will do review.
2017-02-24
04 Deborah Brungard IESG state changed to Expert Review from Publication Requested
2017-02-23
04 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to He Jia
2017-02-23
04 Min Ye Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to He Jia
2017-02-22
04 Jonathan Hardwick Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR
2017-02-16
04 Andy Malis
Document Writeup for Working Group Documents

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected …
Document Writeup for Working Group Documents

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Informational. This document isn't defining a new protocol, but rather methods to optimize the use of PIM-based multicast in a VPLS environment. The type of RFC is indicated on the title page.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction.

  This document describes the procedures and recommendations for
  Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS) Provider Edges (PEs) to facilitate
  replication of multicast traffic to only certain ports (behind which
  there are interested Protocol Independent Multicast (PIM) routers
  and/or Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) hosts) via Protocol
  Independent Multicast (PIM) snooping and proxying.

Working Group Summary:

The primary thing to note about the WG process was the length of time it's taken to get this done. This is primarily due to two factors. The first is that it started in the L2VPN WG, and there was a five-year gap between draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping revisions -01 and -02. My understanding is that was due to the implementors both gaining experience with deployed code at that time, and not having the time to get back to the draft. Once the work restarted in L2VPN, there was a last call, however, due to review comments, work continued on the draft. When the PWE3 and L2VPN WGs were merged into the PALS WG, it was reissued as a PALS draft, and updates continued from additional experience from the field and some fresh sets of eyes.

Document Quality:

The document has existed in one form or another since 2005, and has gone through a total of 15 revisions. It has been though WG last call twice (see above for the WG history). There is at least one known implementation that has been deployed in the field for a number of years.

Personnel:

Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?

Andy Malis. Deborah Brungard.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

The document has been reviewed and is ready for publication. There is one nit to be corrected, but that can be done by the RFC Editor if there are no other changes needed (see below).

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

None.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g.,
, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

This is not a concern, just an observation. The Security Considerations section is light, but that is because this document is Informational and doesn't define any new protocols. The section does refer back to the Security Considerations in the base VPLS documents, since they would also apply to this document. The described methods to optimize the use of PIM-based multicast in a VPLS environment do not introduce any new security concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes. In addition to the current set of authors, the PALS document shepherd also polled the authors of previous L2VPN and individual revisions of the document, and received affirmative replies from all of them. In some cases, it was fortuitous that the old email addresses still worked.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.

There is one IPR declaration that was issued when it was still an L2VPN WG document. There have not been any concerns expressed by either the L2VPN or PALS WGs.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

It represents the combined work of a number of authors though the years from almost as many different organizations. There have been comments over the years that have been incorporated into the text, and there are no objections to this being published.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.

There are two minor nits noted by the tool. The only real one is an outdated RFC reference that can be corrected by the RFC Editor if no other changes are required prior to publication, RFC 4601 was obsoleted by RFC 7761. Note that Section 2.3.3 of this draft discusses how the draft explicitly doesn't address the major feature of RFC 4601 that was removed by RFC 7761, "(*,*,RP)" support.

The other reported nit isn't real. The tool thought that it detected embedded code, but it's just pseudocode used to express forwarding rules.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

None.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.

None.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

There are no IANA considerations.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

N/A

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

N/A
2017-02-16
04 Andy Malis Responsible AD changed to Deborah Brungard
2017-02-16
04 Andy Malis IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2017-02-16
04 Andy Malis IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2017-02-16
04 Andy Malis IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2017-02-16
04 Andy Malis Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared.
2017-02-16
04 Andy Malis Changed document writeup
2017-02-16
04 Andy Malis Intended Status changed to Informational from None
2017-02-09
04 Andy Malis Notification list changed to "Andrew Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
2017-02-09
04 Andy Malis Document shepherd changed to Andrew G. Malis
2017-02-09
04 Andy Malis Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set.
2017-02-09
04 Andy Malis IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document
2017-01-04
04 Olivier Dornon New version available: draft-ietf-pals-vpls-pim-snooping-04.txt
2017-01-04
04 (System) New version approved
2017-01-04
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Jayant Kotalwar" , pals-chairs@ietf.org, "Ray Qiu" , "Venu Hemige" , "Olivier Dornon" , "Zhaohui Zhang"
2017-01-04
04 Olivier Dornon Uploaded new revision
2016-10-14
03 Olivier Dornon New version available: draft-ietf-pals-vpls-pim-snooping-03.txt
2016-10-14
03 (System) New version approved
2016-10-14
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Jayant Kotalwar" , pals-chairs@ietf.org, "Ray Qiu" , "Venu Hemige" , "Zhaohui Zhang" , "Olivier Dornon"
2016-10-14
02 Olivier Dornon Uploaded new revision
2016-10-10
02 Andy Malis This document now replaces draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-pim-snooping instead of None
2016-04-15
02 Olivier Dornon New version available: draft-ietf-pals-vpls-pim-snooping-02.txt
2015-10-16
01 Olivier Dornon New version available: draft-ietf-pals-vpls-pim-snooping-01.txt
2015-04-21
00 Olivier Dornon New version available: draft-ietf-pals-vpls-pim-snooping-00.txt