Re: [bess] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-12: (with DISCUSS)
Hi Eric, Yes. It does. I have cleared. Regards Suresh > On Nov 28, 2018, at 11:35 AM, Eric Rosen 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) >>> 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
Re: [bess] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-12: (with DISCUSS)
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) >> 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
Re: [bess] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-12: (with DISCUSS)
Hi Martin, > On Oct 25, 2018, at 4:31 AM, Vigoureux, Martin (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) > 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
Re: [bess] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-12: (with DISCUSS)
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. -m Le 2018-10-25 à 5:05, Suresh Krishnan a écrit : > Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-12: Discuss > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track/ > > > > -- > DISCUSS: > -- > > * Section 5.2. > > In the NLRI format it is not clear what the length of the "Ingress PE's IP > address" field is supposed to be. i.e. what address families does it support > and how do we determine what sort of address follows since there is no length > field in front. > > > > > ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
[bess] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-12: (with DISCUSS)
Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-12: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track/ -- DISCUSS: -- * Section 5.2. In the NLRI format it is not clear what the length of the "Ingress PE's IP address" field is supposed to be. i.e. what address families does it support and how do we determine what sort of address follows since there is no length field in front. ___ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
