Eduard, Thanks for the review. Comments inline @ [RP] On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 7:03 AM <[email protected]> wrote:
> For what it's worth, the change in structure I think has improved > readability. > > Few small points I noted: > There is a type in section 3.1.3: "carried in AFI/SAFI 1/129 (MVPN-IPv4) > or 1/129 (MVPN-IPv6)", should be "... 2/129 (MVPN-IPv6)" > [RP] Good catch. Will fix it in the next revision. > In section 3.2.1 is stated: > "For segmented P-tunnels, each segment can be instantiated by a different > technology." > > Instead of "different technology" would it be better to state "different > tunnel type"? I assume at least this refers to the tunnel type. > [RP] Good suggestion. We will change the text in the next revision. > Related to this, should some similar text be included for regular, > non-segmented tunnels? Are the tunnel-types of all CPs and tunnel instances > in a policy assumed to be the same, or could these be different? > [RP] All the P-tunnels instantiated by different Candidate Paths of an SR P2MP Policy have either SR-MPLS P2MP Tree or SRv6 P2MP Tree. Segmented P-tunnels are segmented and stitched at a boundary, say an ASBR or ABR (for seamless MPLS like deployments). The first segment can be SR P2MP P-tunnel type, the second segment can be Ingress Replication P-tunnel type, the third can be MLDP P-tunnel type and so on. OTOH, non-segmented P-tunnels have one P-tunnel of a given type (across the boundary devices). I hope this clarifies the distinction between these two ways to instantiate P-tunnels. > cheers, > Eduard > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Stephane Litkowski (slitkows) <[email protected] > > > *Sent:* Monday, January 12, 2026 10:57 > *To:* [email protected] <[email protected]> > *Cc:* '[email protected]' <[email protected]> > *Subject:* [bess] WG review requested on > draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp-17, ending Monday 19th > > Hi WG, > > > > As result of the IESG review, draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp has been > modified significantly. > > We would like to ensure that there is still consensus on the document text > after these changes. > > > > Please carefully read the document and provide any objection/comment by > January 19th. > > > > > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp-15&url2=draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp-17&difftype=--html > > > > > > Thanks in advance, > > > > Stephane > _______________________________________________ > BESS mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
