On 9/30/15, 2:34 AM, "thomas.mo...@orange.com<mailto:thomas.mo...@orange.com>" <thomas.mo...@orange.com<mailto:thomas.mo...@orange.com>> wrote:
Thomas: Hi! . . . Current: The label may be shared with other P-tunnels, subject to the anti-ambiguity rules for extranet [I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-bidir-ingress-replication-02#ref-I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet>]. For example, the (C-*,C-*- BIDIR) and (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D routes originated by a given PE can optionally share a label. Proposed: These specifications do not prevent sharing of labels between P-tunnels, such as a label being shared by a (C-*,C-*- BIDIR) and a (C-*,C-G-BIDIR) S-PMSI A-D route originated by a given PE (note that other specs put constraints on how that can be done, e.g. [I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-bidir-ingress-replication-02#ref-I-D.ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet>]). In fact, if the rules in ietf-bess-mvpn-extranet are not needed then don’t even mention them — referring to them just causes confusion as to whether they were needed. I think that if this is clearly provided as an example then it can help the reader have the right context information to better understand the spec. That works for me. Just a nit: s/These specifications/This specification . . . Let's use RFC6513 section 2.1.2 as the reference for ingress replication, and eventually let the reader find out by himself when/if the IR-replication related materiel in this RFC is updated... Fine with me too. Thanks! Alvaro.
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
