dle them.
I do not understand looping in redundant pseudowire setups well enough to have
an argument about them.
Cheers
Toerless
> Regards,
> Luc André
>
> Luc André Burdet | Cisco | laburdet.i...@gmail.com | Tel: +1 613 254 4814
>
>
> From: Toerless Eckert via Dat
Reviewer: Toerless Eckert
Review result: On the Right Track
Reviewer: Toerless Eckert
Summary:
The purpose of the document is to extend the BGP message signaling and local
router procedures for failover of "Designated Forwarders" for pseudowires using
calculated future timestamps and
10, as these registers only go to members of the RP
> > > set. And the RP set should be configured on all the C-RPs. It wouldn't
> > > make much sense to have these registers transit the MVPN domain to go to
> > > an AnycastRP not in the configured RP set.
>
go to
> an AnycastRP not in the configured RP set.
>
> Hope this is clear, and let me know if I'm missing anything.
>
> -Lenny
>
> | -Original Message-
> | From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Toerless Eckert
> | Sent: Monday, Novembe
Jeffrey presented subject draft in mboned. Given how i am
not usually tracking BESS WG mailing list and may not be around:
I would like to see subject draft to be adopted as a WG document in BESS
and become an update to RFC6514 (not to say bugfix ;-).
Feeedback detail: The draft should be amended
