PIM ECMP Assert draft-hou-pim-ecmp-00 IETF 80, Prague.
-
Upload
zoe-kelley -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of PIM ECMP Assert draft-hou-pim-ecmp-00 IETF 80, Prague.
![Page 1: PIM ECMP Assert draft-hou-pim-ecmp-00 IETF 80, Prague.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022082604/5514e2f6550346b0478b586e/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
PIM ECMP Assert
draft-hou-pim-ecmp-00
IETF 80, Prague
![Page 2: PIM ECMP Assert draft-hou-pim-ecmp-00 IETF 80, Prague.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022082604/5514e2f6550346b0478b586e/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Agenda
• Overview
• Use Cases
• Design Consideration
• Packet Format
• Open Items
• Questions for the Working Group
IETF 80 draft-hou-pim-ecmp-00 2
![Page 3: PIM ECMP Assert draft-hou-pim-ecmp-00 IETF 80, Prague.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022082604/5514e2f6550346b0478b586e/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
PIM ECMP Assert Overview
• Existing ECMP RPF selection is driven by downstream, using either largest IP address or hash.– Lack of administrative choice on path selection
– No flexibility.
• PIM ECMP Assert is proposed to improve control of RPF path selection.– Initiated by upstream routers (similar to Assert)
– Used to choose a path based on administrative choice.
IETF 80 draft-hou-pim-ecmp-00 3
![Page 4: PIM ECMP Assert draft-hou-pim-ecmp-00 IETF 80, Prague.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022082604/5514e2f6550346b0478b586e/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Use Case 1
IETF 80 draft-hou-pim-ecmp-00 4
A B
C D
sources
receivers
RPF is Red/ARPF is Red/A
RPF is Blue/A or Blue/BRPF is Blue/A or Blue/B
![Page 5: PIM ECMP Assert draft-hou-pim-ecmp-00 IETF 80, Prague.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022082604/5514e2f6550346b0478b586e/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Analysis On Case 1
• Different routing policy– E.g, A/B and C/D are connected via BGP– C and D may have different number of paths
• Different hash algorithm– C runs source based hash while D runs group
based hash
• Other implementation specific factors– Available paths are not sorted the same on C/D
IETF 80 draft-hou-pim-ecmp-00 5
![Page 6: PIM ECMP Assert draft-hou-pim-ecmp-00 IETF 80, Prague.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022082604/5514e2f6550346b0478b586e/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Use Case 2
IETF 80 draft-hou-pim-ecmp-00 6
A B
C D
sources
receivers
5.RPF is Red/A5.RPF is Red/A
3.RPF is Blue/A3.RPF is Blue/A
1.RPF is Red/A1.RPF is Red/A
2. Link Down2. Link Down
4. Link Up4. Link Up
![Page 7: PIM ECMP Assert draft-hou-pim-ecmp-00 IETF 80, Prague.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022082604/5514e2f6550346b0478b586e/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Design Consideration
• Minimize control traffic in steady state
• Minimize unnecessary traffic disruption
• Reuse existing mechanism
IETF 80 draft-hou-pim-ecmp-00 7
![Page 8: PIM ECMP Assert draft-hou-pim-ecmp-00 IETF 80, Prague.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022082604/5514e2f6550346b0478b586e/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Packet Format 0 1 2 3
A0A1A2A3A4A5A6A7A8A9B0B1B2B3B4B5B6B7B8B9C0C1C2C3C4C5C6C7C8C9D0D1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| PIM Ver | Type | Reserved | Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Group Address (Encoded-Group format) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Source Address (Encoded-Unicast format) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Neighbor Address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+............ Interface ID ........... -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Preference | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-- ............. Metric …......... -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+- ….. Metric ….. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
IETF 80 draft-hou-pim-ecmp-00 8
![Page 9: PIM ECMP Assert draft-hou-pim-ecmp-00 IETF 80, Prague.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022082604/5514e2f6550346b0478b586e/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Open Items
• PIM Hello Options
IETF 80 draft-hou-pim-ecmp-00 9
ECMP Assert Hello Option
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = TBD | Length = 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
• Normalized Metric ?
• Interface ID Insertion
![Page 10: PIM ECMP Assert draft-hou-pim-ecmp-00 IETF 80, Prague.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022082604/5514e2f6550346b0478b586e/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Questions For The WG
• Interest?
IETF 80 draft-hou-pim-ecmp-00 10