Subject: [pim] PIM + VRRP final call for adoption

From: Mike McBride <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:21:57 +0000

Howdy,

As a follow up to our meeting in Toronto, we need to again discuss this specific draft (http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-zhou-pim-vrrp-02.txt) on the list, one last time. As you look at the minutes below, you'll see that we had another discussion about whether to adopt the draft and the relevancy of the work in general. There are good opinions for and against adoption of this draft. We haven't reached consensus to adopt. This is a last call to hear your opinions either way. Please speak up. If we can reach consensus we will adopt. If we cannot reach consensus we will recommend the author to submit an individual, non wg, submission.

Thank you for sharing your opinions, we are a friendly group, don't be shy.

mike

...
PIM WG IETF90 Toronto: July 22nd: 1640-1840

draft-zhou-pim-vrrp: Mike (not on agenda, impromptu slides ;)

Lenny : Don't use VRRP. Use unicast routing protocols to solve the problem.

Herman: Customers have seen this issue. Some solution needed.

Stig: Solution in the document has been implemented and shipping.

Mike: WG adoption poll (again!) on mailing list.

Stig: Individual submission - question to Alia on thoughts.

Alia: Can go as independent submission, if it doesn't hurt anything
architecturally. Will not be an AD sponsored work. If it's a real problem,
why not solve in WG. Discuss on list (maybe there is a better solution).

Lenny: It is a real problem, since things break. Rather than run PIM, run
unicast routing protocol. Unicast protocol should be much simpler to run
than a multicast protocol.

Stig: Customer are using static routing protocol. Hence the need.
...