Thanks for the update, Stig. -08 looks very good.
I don't agree that scale is the key aspect to disqualify this draft from
being considered to go standards track. There is a lot of IP multicast deployed
very densely - in those deployments, PIM-SM will not scale better but will
continue to be more operationally expensive due to its need for manual
configuration and complexity.
I am happy to be educated about the current normative criteria for standards track (ptr ?).
Cheers
toerless
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 03:20:37PM -0800, Stig Venaas wrote:
> Thanks. I posted version 08 just now that includes some text suggested
> by Toerless. How well this scales is probably the most important part
> of the experiment. I agree we do not know the applicability at this
> point.
>
> Stig
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:16 AM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Reviewer: Joel Jaeggli
> > Review result: Has Nits
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > I reviewed this draft on behalf of the OPS directorate for operational
> > considerations.
> >
> > I think this draft is largely ready to go. Toerless had some comments during
> > last call against draft-07 which are worthy of inclusion. In particular, The
> > distinction between BSR (rfc 5059) although pointed out in the introduction is
> > important enough that it should be captured in the title.
> >
> > >From my general understanding of the mechanism there are probably limitations
> > to how well ti apprach scales which limits it's applicability to large pim
> > domains. The experimental status is therefore quite appropriate. It represents
> > significant improvement over dense mode pim so in the sense that it offers the
> > opportunity for significantly lower coordination/signaling requirements without
> > the destructive nature of flooding and then pruning the source traffic. it is
> > quite appropriate to proceed to experimental status. When we move on from that
> > I would be willing to bet that applicability will need to be refined
> > accordingly.
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> pim mailing list
> pim@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim
--
---
tte@xxxxxxxxx