Hi Eric, Yes. It does. I have cleared. Regards Suresh
> On Nov 28, 2018, at 11:35 AM, Eric Rosen <ero...@juniper.net> wrote: > > Suresh, > > I believe draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-13 addresses your issues. > Please let me know. > > Eric > > On 10/25/2018 9:14 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote: >> Hi Martin, >> >> >>> On Oct 25, 2018, at 4:31 AM, Vigoureux, Martin (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) >>> <martin.vigour...@nokia.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hello Suresh, >>> >>> thank you for your review. >>> This NLRI is in fact defined in 6514 and the determination of the length >>> of the IP address field is clarified in 6515, section 2 item 3. >> That makes more sense but this is not clear from the draft at all. The only >> prelude to the format says >> >> "The "route key" field of the NLRI will have the following format:” >> >> with no further explanations that this format is simply repeated from >> RFC6514(I am guessing it is the S-PMSI A-D Route defined in Section 4.3). >> Additionally, the draft does not even have a reference to RFC6515. I think >> it would be really good to put some pointers into this draft. Suggest >> something like this >> >> OLD: >> >> The "route key" field of the NLRI will have >> the following format: >> >> NEW: >> >> The "route key" field of the NLRI uses >> the following format as defined in Section 4.3 of [RFC6514]: >> >> >> OLD: >> >> o The "ingress PE" address is taken from the "originating router" >> field of the NLRI of the S-PMSI A-D route that is the match for >> tracking. >> >> NEW: >> >> o The "ingress PE" address is taken from the "originating router" >> field of the NLRI of the S-PMSI A-D route that is the match for >> tracking. The length of the Ingress PE's IP address is computed >> using the procedure described in Section 2 Item 3 of [RFC6515] >> >> Thanks >> Suresh >> > _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
