Subject: Re: [bess] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: "Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2021 23:14:24 +0000

Hi Alvaro,
while i wait for PIM working group to provide and submit the next revision this Friday. I have question about one of the comment. Please let me know if these changes are something you expecting.

  *   IGMP Join changes to Membership Report
  *   IGMP Join Sync changes to Membership Report Sync
  *   All mention of Join changes to Membership Report

Since IGMP Join Sync has been terminology getting used for long with this draft, wanted to make sure this is ok before i publish the changed version.

Though i was trying to see if RFC3376 uses term Join. It looks like it does. but many places it uses Membership reports for actual packet on wire.

Mankamana

On 11/18/21 12:50 PM, Alvaro Retana wrote:

On November 17, 2021 at 3:11:49 PM, Mankamana Mishra wrote:

Mankamana:

Hi!

...

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all, I am surprised that a document related to IGMP/MLD was not sent
to the pim WG for review. I can't find any mention of this draft in the pim
WG's archive.

Mankamana: As in contributor to this document, all the procedures are very
much limited to BGP overlay signaling. Not sure which aspect would be
reviewed by PIM WG. This draft does not change any behavior of PIM or IGMP .

This document is about proxying IGMP/MLD through an EVPN domain to
"reduce the flooding of IGMP messages", which implies that the
messages are received and recreated [*] based on the BGP information.
The routers are them acting as both a multicast router and group
member -- this behavior, including the operation of multiple versions
of IGMP on the same link has already bee specified in rfc3376.  The
mechanism described in this document don't seem to be in line with
that -- starting with the requirement to consider IGMPv1 as invalid.

So, yes, there are no changes to the protocols, but the behavior
specified is not in line with the existing standards.  That is what I
want the pim to look at.

[*] That is part of Eric's DISCUSS.

...

I am balloting DISCUSS because this document is not in line with other
consensus documents (specifically the IGMP specification). To clear, I will
want the document reviewed by the pim WG.

Mankamana : Do you expect it to be reviewed by PIM WG or we should remove
section talking about use of V1 ? Based on current work in PIM WG, our
understanding is that “v1 will become deprecated, v2 will still be proposed
standard, and v3 will become internet standard.”

I expect the document to be reviewed by pim.

As I mentioned before, the current work in pim is to move rfc3376 to
Internet Standard, which would still be backwards compatible with
IGMPv1.

...

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) The terminology section should include IGMP/MLD-related terminology or at
least a pointer to the relevant RFCs.

Also, the messages are called Membership Reports, and not "Join" or "IGMP
Reports". Similar comment related to "IGMP Queries" and "Membership Requests"
(should be Membership Query).

[I will not make other comments below about this same point.]

Mankamana : will change IGMP join to Membership Request

An "IGMP join" should be a "Membership Report" (not a request).  There
are no "requests", just "Membership Queries".

(2)
[Line numbers from idnits.]

260 1. When the first hop PE receives several IGMP Membership Reports
261 (Joins), belonging to the same IGMP version, from different
262 attached hosts for the same (*,G) or (S,G), it SHOULD send a
263 single BGP message corresponding to the very first IGMP
264 Membership Request (BGP update as soon as possible) for that
265 (*,G) or (S,G). This is because BGP is a stateful protocol and
266 no further transmission of the same report is needed. If the

The behavior in this rule is not required. Under what circumstances is it ok
for the PE to not wait for several Membership Reports from multiple hosts
before sending a BGP message?

Waiting for multiple messages can clearly result in a delay for an interested
host in receiving the multicast service. Note that rfc3376 says that
"Multicast routers need to know only that *at least one* system on an attached
network is interested..."

Mankamana :

it SHOULD send a
263 single BGP message corresponding to the very first IGMP
264 Membership Request (BGP update as soon as possible) for that

does this not mean, BGP update should be sent ASAP. It does not state to wait
for many ?

The first part of that sentence says: "When the first hop PE receives
several IGMP Membership Reports..."  The action is predicated (in the
text) by receiving multiple messages -- after that you're right, the
message would be send ASAP.

(3)

269 (v2 or v3) set. In case of IGMPv3, the exclude flag MUST also be
270 set to indicate that no source IP address must be excluded
271 (include all sources "*"). If the IGMP Join is for (S,G), then
272 besides setting multicast group address along with the version
273 flag v3, the source IP address and the IE flag MUST be set. It

"the exclude flag MUST also be set" I think you meant to reference the Exclude
Group and the IE field in the flags. Note that the second part ("IE flag MUST
be set") also refers to the same field, but for a different condition. Please
be consistent and call things (the IE field, in this case) by a single name.

The definitions in §9.* are not consistent either.

Mankamana : will IE (Include or Exclude) in terminology be enough ? First
part of statement talks about (*,G) join where only Exclude flag would be
set. Where for (S,G) Include or Exclude either can be set.

No -- please be consistent throughout.

Note that the flag is called IE (in §9.1) and defined as a single bit,
so talking about how "Include or Exclude either can be set" is
confusing: the bit is either set or it isn't -- these are not
independent flags.

(4)

277 2. When the first hop PE receives an IGMPv3 Join for (S,G) on a
278 given BD, it SHOULD advertise the corresponding EVPN Selective
279 Multicast Ethernet Tag (SMET) route regardless of whether the
280 source (S) is attached to itself or not in order to facilitate
281 the source move in the future.

When is it ok for the SMET route not to be advertised? IOW, why is it a
recommendation and not a requirement?

Mankamana : changing SHOULD to MUST ?

That's the question! :-)

It seems to be that the SMET route should be advertised always
(required = MUST), but I'm asking why you chose to allow for it to not
be advertised sometimes (recommended = SHOULD)?

(5)

283 3. When the first hop PE receives an IGMP version-X Join first for
284 (*,G) and then later it receives an IGMP version-Y Join for the
285 same (*,G), then it MUST re-advertise the same EVPN SMET route
286 with flag for version-Y set in addition to any previously-set
287 version flag(s). In other words, the first hop PE MUST NOT
288 withdraw the EVPN route before sending the new route because the
289 flag field is not part of BGP route key processing.

The requirement (MUST) to re-advertise the same SMET route assumes that there
was an advertisement done already, but rule 2 doesn’t require that.

Mankamana : Changing previous one to MUST should fix this comment too.

Yes, if that is the right thing to do there.

(6)

291 4. When the first hop PE receives an IGMP version-X Join first for
292 (*,G) and then later it receives an IGMPv3 Join for the same
293 multicast group address but for a specific source address S, then
294 the PE MUST advertise a new EVPN SMET route with v3 flag set (and
295 v2 reset). The IE flag also need to be set accordingly. Since
296 source IP address is used as part of BGP route key processing it
297 is considered as a new BGP route advertisement. When different
298 version of IGMP join are received, final state MUST be as per
299 section 5.1 of [RFC3376]. At the end of route processing local
300 and remote group record state MUST be as per section 5.1 of
301 [RFC3376].

Receiving an IGMPv3 Membership Report for the first time, as described here,
is equivalent to the case in rule 2, However, the normative language is
different: sending an SMET route is required here, but only recommended in
rule 2. I fail to see why the conditions are different.

Also, this rule mentions that the “IE flag also need[s] to be set
accordingly” while rule 1 requires a specific setting.

This section is talking about the actions of a PE when it receives IGMP
messages — this is what rfc3376 refers to as a multicast router. §5.1/rfc3376
refers to the host function (group members). Both statements (which seems
redundant to me) requiring compliance with rfc3376 are misplaced.

Mankamana : Sending you diff soon for your review.

Ok

BTW, these are the only references (in the specification part of the text) to
rfc3376. Given that this document is about IGMP/MLD Proxy, there should be
other references that make clear the normative relationship. The same comment
applies to the other versions of IGMP mentioned as well as MLD.

Mankamana : Will add reference to IGMP and MLD RFC

Please do closer to the start of the document, to establish the
relationship early on.

(7)

§4.1.1: The set of rules in this section (IGMP/MLD Membership Report
Advertisement in BGP) is preceded with:

256 When a PE wants to advertise an IGMP Membership Report (Join) using
257 the BGP EVPN route, it follows the following rules (BGP encoding
258 stated in Section 9):

But rules 5-7 are about the actions related to the SMET route being received,
not advertising it. Perhaps divide the list of rules so that it is clear when
they apply.

Mankamana : making it two section ? one who advertising the route and other
for who receiving it ?

Two sections is ok -- or simply two lists in the same section.  Up to you.

...

(9)
§4.1.2: Rules 2-3 are about the actions after the SMET route is received,
which doesn't match with the preface to the rules. Perhaps divide the list
of rules...

Mankamana : making some changes and sending new text soon.

Ok.

(10)

1269 IGMP MAY be configured with immediate leave option. This allows the
1270 device to remove the group entry from the multicast routing table
1271 immediately upon receiving a IGMP leave message for (x,G). In case
1272 of all active multi-homing while synchronizing the IGMP Leave state
1273 to redundancy peers, Maximum Response Time MAY be filled in as Zero.
1274 Implementations SHOULD have identical configuration across multi-
1275 homed peers. In case IGMP Leave Synch route is received with Maximum
1276 Response Time Zero, irrespective of local IGMP configuration it MAY
1277 be processed as an immediate leave.

By "immediate leave" I assume you're referring to "low leave latency"
(rfc2236/rfc3376), is that right? There is no "immediate leave" mentioned in
those documents.

"IGMP MAY be configured with immediate leave option." This "MAY" seems to just
be stating a fact. s/MAY/may

When is it ok for implementations to not have the same configuration? IOW, why
is that a recommendation and not a requirement?

Mankamana: Yes immediate leave is “low leave latency”. Since its optional
functionality, its not hard requirement. An implementation may or may not
support this functionality.

Ok.  Let me ask a different question: what is the effect of not having
the same configuration?  Just from the leave latency point of view, it
looks like the behavior may be inconsistent.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2021 15:56:54 -0500

Hi!

Yes, please use terminology consistent with the existing RFCs.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On December 8, 2021 at 6:14:34 PM, Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) (
[email-masked]) wrote:

Hi Alvaro,
while i wait for PIM working group to provide and submit the next revision
this Friday. I have question about one of the comment. Please let me know
if these changes are something you expecting.

   - IGMP Join changes to Membership Report
   - IGMP Join Sync changes to Membership Report Sync
   - All mention of Join changes to Membership Report

Since IGMP Join Sync has been terminology getting used for long with this
draft, wanted to make sure this is ok before i publish the changed version.
Though i was trying to see if RFC3376 uses term Join. It looks like it
does. but many places it uses Membership reports for actual packet on wire.

Mankamana

Mankamana:

Hi!

...

...

...

(2)

Mankamana :

it SHOULD send a

(3)

(4)

That's the question! :-)

(5)

(6)

Ok

(7)

...

(9)

Ok.

(10)

Thanks!

Alvaro.

---

From: "Mankamana Mishra (mankamis)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 02:48:04 +0000

Thanks, changed version on the way .

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 12:58 PM
To: Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) <[email-masked]>, The IESG <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-igmp-mld-proxy-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Hi!

Thanks!

Alvaro.

Hi Alvaro,

Mankamana

Mankamana:

Hi!

...

Mankamana: As in contributor to this document, all the procedures are very
much limited to BGP overlay signaling. Not sure which aspect would be
reviewed by PIM WG. This draft does not change any behavior of PIM or IGMP