Agree that in practice the tunnel types will be same, given they are part of the same domain as you pointed out below.
I assume it doesn't really break things if different tunnel types would be used in different CPs? If not, no additional clarification is needed I guess. Might even be a "feature" in transition from Sr-MPLS to SRv6? Though that type of use would probably require some additional description. cheers, Eduard ________________________________ From: Rishabh Parekh <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 21:21 To: Metz, Eduard <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [bess] Re: WG review requested on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp-17, ending Monday 19th Eduard, SR P2MP Policy draft does not have the text since it does not deal with MVPN/EVPN. All the CPs of an SR-P2MP Policy result in SR P2MP trees computed and instantiated in an SR domain. Therefore, it is obvious if SR-P2MP Policy is used for MVPN./EVPN, the P-tunnel type for these SR-P2MP trees will be SR-MPLS or SRv6 P2MP P-tunnel type. But if you think this document requires some text to clarify this, I can add it in the next revision. Regards, Rishabh On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 11:56 AM <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Thanks! [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. I was looking for something like this. Is this defined somewhere (maybe in the policy draft, I did not check)? If not, is it worth adding? cheers, Eduard ________________________________ From: Rishabh Parekh <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 18:58 To: Metz, Eduard <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [bess] Re: WG review requested on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp-17, ending Monday 19th Eduard, Thanks for the review. Comments inline @ [RP] On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 7:03 AM <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 10:57 To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: '[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>' <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<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]
