Subject: Re: [L3sm] [l3sm] #5 (draft-ltsd-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model): Multicast Support for L3VPN service

From: "l3sm issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 09:44:18 -0000

#5: Multicast Support for L3VPN service

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 Here is Stephane's proposed change for the multicast part :

 VPN config :
       |  +--rw multicast
       |     +--rw tree-flavor*   identityref
       |     +--rw rp
       |        +--rw rp-group-mapping* [rp-address group]
       |        |  +--rw rp-address          union
       |        |  +--rw provider-managed
       |        |  |  +--rw enabled?      boolean
       |        |  |  +--rw anycast-rp?   boolean
       |        |  +--rw group               union
       |        +--rw rp-discovery?       identityref

 We can define a list of RP to group mapping. This is useful when :
 •       Static RP is used and RP is managed by customer => provider-
 managed set to false
 •       RP is managed by provider, if this case , we also need to know
 from customer if anycast RP is required. But I’m wondering if it is
 necessary or not, from a technical point of view yes, from an abstraction
 point of view, does the customer care if we use anycast RP or just RP
 redundancy through the discovery mechanism ? Maybe we can just rename
 anycast-RP to redundant-RP.
 In case of provider-managed, I expect the OSS to place the RP in the
 provider network, maybe we need to add some constraint here also …
 If the customer does anycast RP (customer managed RP), IMO, it should be
 transparent for the provider ?
 •       Note that the proposal allows for some groups to be managed by
 provider and some others by customer.

 Site config :
       |     +--rw multicast
       |        +--rw multicast-site-type?            enumeration
       |        +--rw multicast-transport-protocol
       |        |  +--rw ipv4?   boolean
       |        |  +--rw ipv6?   boolean
       |        +--rw protocol-type?

 In the site config, I added the protocol-type, which refers to “host”
 “router” or “both”. “Host” means some hosts are connected to the provider
 network (so requires IGMP or MLD), “Router” means hosts are behind a
 customer router (so need of PIM), “both” means need to enable both
 IGMP/MLD and PIM.

 You can also review his proposal from the following link:
 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/l3sm/NklHSPuYTj4bnHLBWWeEVdxghi0

 Replying to [ticket:5 bill.wu@…]:
 > Eric C Rosen commented on Multicast support for L3VPN service and
 believed specify the RPA in the service model is not enough
 > and he proposed to contain the complete set of customer group-to-rp
 mapping and he also proposed service model to specify who offers RP
 service
 >
 > Stephane made a proposal based on his suggetion and share on the list
 for broad review and haven't recieved any feedback on the list. Therefore
 the proposal hasn't been incorporated into v(-01) yet.

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]       |       Owner:  draft-ltsd-l3sm-l3vpn-
     Type:  enhancement              |  [email-masked]
 Priority:  minor                    |      Status:  new
Component:  draft-ltsd-l3sm-l3vpn-   |   Milestone:
  service-model                      |     Version:
 Severity:  -                        |  Resolution:
 Keywords:  Multicast                |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/l3sm/trac/ticket/5#comment:1>
l3sm <https://tools.ietf.org/l3sm/>