Re: [bess] RFC9251

behalf of Nitsan Dolev mailto:nitsan.do...@rbbn.com>> Date: Sunday, March 17, 2024 at 8:19 AM To: rfc9...@ietf.org<mailto:rfc9...@ietf.org> mailto:rfc9...@ietf.org>>, bess@ietf.org<mailto:bess@ietf.org> mailto:bess@ietf.org>> Subject: [bess] RFC9251 Dear RFC9251 Co-au

Re: [bess] RFC9251

implementation. Mankamana From: BESS on behalf of Nitsan Dolev Date: Sunday, March 17, 2024 at 8:19 AM To: rfc9...@ietf.org , bess@ietf.org Subject: [bess] RFC9251 Dear RFC9251 Co-authors, Your help with the following questions will be most appreciated, RFC 9251 seems to assume that the receiving PE

Re: [bess] rfc9251

Hi Shasha Proxy querier behavior expects implementation to generate IGMP join locally on LAN after getting SMET joins. IP address depends on implementation. It can pick IP address from IRB or internal querier configuration. Is there any specific case that has issue? Mankamana From: Alexander

[bess] RFC9251

Dear RFC9251 Co-authors, Your help with the following questions will be most appreciated, RFC 9251 seems to assume that the receiving PE will forward: 1. (S,G1) traffic only to those host who explicitly sent IGMPv3 report (S,G1) and those who sent IGMPv3 Report (*,G1) 2. (*,G1)

[bess] rfc9251

Dear RFC9251 Co-authors, Your help with the following questions will be most appreciated, RFC 9251 seems to assume that the receiving PE will forward: 1. (S,G1) traffic only to those host who explicitly sent IGMPv3 report (S,G1) and those who sent IGMPv3 Report (*,G1) 2. (*,G1) traffic

Re: [bess] rfc9251

Hi all, Yet another question related to RFC 9251. Section 4.2 of RFC 9251 says: As mentioned in the previous sections, each PE MUST have proxy querier functionality for the following reasons: 1. to enable the collection of EVPN

Re: [bess] rfc9251

Hi all, Re-sending to the authors since the address : rfc9...@ietf.org is invalid. Regards, Sasha From: Alexander Vainshtein Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2024 2:01 PM To: rfc9...@ietf.org Cc: bess@ietf.org Subject: rfc9251 Hi all, I have a question regarding expected DP

[bess] rfc9251

Hi all, I have a question regarding expected DP behavior in conjunction with RFC 9521: Are the PEs that support this RFC expected to decrement TTL in IP headers of multicast IP packets they forward? This question is equally applicable to the "last mile" PEs that have received IGMP/MLD Joins