The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Segment Routing MPLS Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Policy Ping' (draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping-24.txt) as Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Protocols for IP Multicast Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Gunter Van de Velde, Jim Guichard and Ketan Talaulikar. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-p2mp-policy-ping/ Technical Summary SR Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Policies are used to define and manage explicit P2MP paths within a network. These policies are typically calculated via a controller-based mechanisms and installed via a Path Computation Element (PCE). In other cases these policies can be installed manually via YANG modles or CLI. They are used to steer multicast traffic along optimized paths from a Root to a set of Leaf routers. This document defines extensions to Ping and Traceroute mechanisms for Segment Routing (SR) P2MP Policy with MPLS encapsulation to provide OAM (Operations, Administration, and Maintenance) capabilities. The proposed extensions enable operators to verify connectivity, diagnose failures and troubleshoot forwarding issues within P2MP Policy multicast trees. By introducing new mechanisms for detecting failures and validating path integrity, this document enhances the operational robustness of P2MP multicast deployments. Additionally, it ensures that existing MPLS and SR-based OAM tools can be effectively applied to networks utilizing P2MP Policies. Working Group Summary Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? All processing went smooth in collaboration with SPRING Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type Review, on what date was the request posted? Implementation from Nokia exists. Personnel The Document Shepherd for this document is Mike McBride. The Responsible Area Director is Gunter Van de Velde. _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
