Hi Igor and Ryan, I also think the errata is correct, and I agree with your analysis, Igor.
Thanks. Jorge From: Igor Malyushkin <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 at 2:04 AM To: Gyan Mishra <[email protected]> Cc: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <[email protected]>, Matthew Bocci (Nokia) <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [bess] Re: Errata on RFC7117 and RFC8584 CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information. Hi Gian, Section 9.2.2 cannot be applied, it says that explicitly: Usage of leaf A-D routes is described in the "Inter-AS Inclusive P-Multicast Tree A-D/Binding" and "Optimizing Multicast Distribution via Selective Trees" sections. The section in question is named "Intra-AS Inclusive P-Multicast Tree Auto-discovery/Binding", not Inter. Please, pay attention to it. At the same time, Sections 4 and 4.1 describe which routes they exactly expect: VPLS auto-discovery using BGP, as described in [RFC4761<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4761>] and [RFC6074<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6074>], enables a PE to learn the VPLS instance membership of other PEs. And: To participate in the VPLS auto-discovery/binding, a PE router that has a given VSI of a given VPLS instance originates a BGP VPLS Intra- AS A-D route and advertises this route in Multiprotocol (MP) IBGP. The route is constructed as described in [RFC4761<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4761>] and [RFC6074<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6074>]. These must be VPLS A-D routes, not Leaf routes, and they don't have an Originating Router IP field. ... then the local PE MUST use the Originating Router's IP Address information carried in the Intra-AS A-D route to add the PE, that originated the route, as a leaf node to the LSP. This MUST be done irrespective of whether or not the received Intra-AS A-D route carries the PMSI Tunnel attribute. In my understanding, a "leaf" above is specifically for the RSVP-TE case when a sending PE can't expect any actual leaf routes from others because of the nature of inclusive tree construction and it still needs to signal tunnels toward them (thus, needs to know their addresses). So, I still think the errata is correct. P.S. I don't like the idea of using the BGP NH as an identifier of a sender. I think the IETF should provide better tools for that case (as well as for the case of the identification of a service instance from a sender). But this is out-of-scope and cannot be applied right here for the problem in question, so BGP NH is the only option. ср, 29 янв. 2025 г. в 14:10, Gyan Mishra <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>: Hi Jorge I reviewed the errata. For the RFC 7117 errata I had a question. Notes: There is no such field as the Origination Router's IP Address in any VPLS A-D routes (RFC4761, RFC6074). For Intra-AS cases the BGP NH IP address can be used for the leaf tracking. Section 9.2,2 describes the VPLS Leaf A-D route which has route key and originating routers IP address that the source sends Leaf A-D for S-PMSi w/o PTA attribute present. RFC 6514 procedure uses the same leaf a-d route for mLDP P2MP of RSVP-TE P2MP PTA described in section 4.4 for lead a-d route. To me it seems the text is correct in RFC 7117. The other errata is correct for RFC 8584. Kind Regards [http://ss7.vzw.com/is/image/VerizonWireless/vz-logo-email]<http://www.verizon.com/> Gyan Mishra Network Solutions Architect Email [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> M 301 502-1347 On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 9:24 AM Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Matthew, I checked the two errata and I agree they are correct. Thanks. Jorge From: Matthew Bocci (Nokia) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Monday, January 27, 2025 at 3:17 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [bess] Errata on RFC7117 and RFC8584 WG There are a couple of errata on these RFCs that I would appreciate your feedback on: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=7977 (Multicast in Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS)) * I believe this is correct and can be verified. https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=5900 (Framework for Ethernet VPN Designated Forwarder Election Extensibility) * I believe this is correct and can be verified. Please let me know by Monday 10th Feb if you have any concerns with verifying these. Best regards Matthew _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
