Fully understood, and -06 version is ok to me.
Thanks for Eric's patient explanation.
Thanks for Stephane also.
In MVPN using BIER Segmented Scenario, ABR needs Per-flow's VpnLabels to do
further forwarding sticking, so that we can not use a SPMSI (*,*, PTA
Thanks for delving into the details here. This part of the writeup is
very confusing (for which I have no one to blame but myself); I've tried
to clarify in the -06 revision.
On 1/18/2018 9:51 PM, Xiejingrong wrote:
Issue clarification:
According to chap 5.2 of this document:
In a
Hi,
Please find below my understanding of the text.
From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Xiejingrong
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 03:51
To: Eric C Rosen; bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [bess] Comments on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-03
Issue clarification:
According to chap
I apologize for the delay in answering this message.
On 12/21/2017 4:22 AM, Xiejingrong wrote:
I have a comment on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-03.
The chap 5.3 of this document said:
Furthermore, if the PTA specifies "no tunnel info", the LIR and LIR-pF
flags in the PTA MUST be passed
I have a comment on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-expl-track-03.
The chap 5.3 of this document said:
Furthermore, if the PTA specifies "no tunnel info", the LIR and LIR-pF
flags in the PTA MUST be passed along unchanged.
This will ensure that an egress ABR/ASBR only sends a Leaf A-D route
in
