1 / 10

PIM ECMP Assert

PIM ECMP Assert. draft-hou-pim-ecmp-00 IETF 80, Prague. Agenda. Overview Use Cases Design Consideration Packet Format Open Items Questions for the Working Group. PIM ECMP Assert Overview. Existing ECMP RPF selection is driven by downstream, using either largest IP address or hash.

deon
Download Presentation

PIM ECMP Assert

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PIM ECMP Assert draft-hou-pim-ecmp-00 IETF 80, Prague

  2. Agenda • Overview • Use Cases • Design Consideration • Packet Format • Open Items • Questions for the Working Group draft-hou-pim-ecmp-00

  3. 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. draft-hou-pim-ecmp-00

  4. A B C D Use Case 1 sources Red LAN Blue LAN RPF is Blue/A or Blue/B RPF is Red/A receivers draft-hou-pim-ecmp-00

  5. 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 draft-hou-pim-ecmp-00

  6. A B C D Use Case 2 sources 2. Link Down Red LAN 4. Link Up Blue LAN 1.RPF is Red/A 5.RPF is Red/A 3.RPF is Blue/A receivers draft-hou-pim-ecmp-00

  7. Design Consideration • Minimize control traffic in steady state • Minimize unnecessary traffic disruption • Reuse existing mechanism draft-hou-pim-ecmp-00

  8. 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 ….. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ draft-hou-pim-ecmp-00

  9. Open Items • PIM Hello Options 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 draft-hou-pim-ecmp-00

  10. Questions For The WG • Interest? draft-hou-pim-ecmp-00

More Related