Hi authors,
I'll be the shepherd of this document, please find some comments related to current text: §2.2: "To support EVPN all-active multihoming based on local-bias procedures, when an AR-REPLICATOR performs assisted replication on behalf of a multihomed AR-LEAF, the AR-REPLICATOR MUST use the source IP address of the ingress AR-LEAF for packet received on the AR-IP tunnel. " I think the sentence is missing something. "the AR-REPLICATOR MUST use the source IP address...", but it does not say when. Reader could guess, but it's better to make the text more explicit, something like "when replicating ..." Also, the "MUST" does not match the "MAY" from RFC9574 Section 9.1. It is fine to have this draft changing the MAY to a MUST or probably SHOULD (as you are pointing to limitations) but I don't think this should be done in Section 2.2. §3.1: "Extended-MH" name looks a bit misleading. Shouldn't it tell that this AR Replicator doesn't support MH ? "Extended" makes me think that it has more capabilities (or special capabilities) than a regular AR replicator, but in fact it has less. §3.2: "the multihomed AR-LEAF follows the extended Optimized-IR procedures specified in this document." Please point to the proper section of the document where the procedure is defined. "The extended procedures required for an AR-LEAF is further specified in detail in section 5." Isn't it section 4 ? When reading this section, I was thinking that it was defining the procedures. This sentence should probably go at the beginning of the section so the reader knows that this section is an overview of the solution, not the detailed procedures. §4.1.1: "If selective assistant-replication is used for the EVI, selective AR- LEAFs that share the same multihomed ES MUST select the same primary AR-REPLICATOR and the same backup AR-REPLICATOR, if there is one." Is it new vs RFC9574 ? §5 "All multihomed AR-LEAFs and all AR-REPLICATORs within the same EVI MUST use the same scheme to keep track of the common multihomed ES that an AR-LEAF shares with other remote NVEs. " What do you mean this "use the same scheme" ? Are you referring to what you mention in next paragraph about tracking per EVI or per BD ? Enforcing by config is always dangerous, what happens if there is disprecancy in config across the devices ? This should be highlighted. But I'm not really following what needs to be configured. I'm wondering if it would be cleaner to have the text of §5 introduced in §4 so the reader as all the data in one place regarding the procedures of the AR-LEAF. §10: RFC9746 is mentioned in the text but not in the references Brgds, Stephane
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
