subject:"\[bess\] Re\: Errata on RFC7117 and RFC8584"

[bess] Re: Errata on RFC7117 and RFC8584

2025-01-29 Thread Gyan Mishra

Hi Igor

Ditto & me more attentive in reading the draft!

Cheers

Gyan

On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 5:56 AM Igor Malyushkin 
wrote:

> Gyan,
>
> I’m sorry for a mistake with your name. I’ll be more attentive next time!
>
> Ср, 29 янв. 2025 г. в 17:04, Igor Malyushkin :
>
>>
>> Hi Gian,
>>
>> Section 9.2.2 cannot be applied, it says that explicitly:
>>
>>Usage of leaf A-D routes is described in the "*Inter-AS* Inclusive
>>P-Multicast Tree A-D/Binding" and "Optimizing Multicast Distribution
>>via Selective Trees" sections.
>>
>>
>> The section in question is named "*Intra-AS* Inclusive P-Multicast Tree
>> Auto-discovery/Binding", not *Inter*. Please, pay attention to it.
>>
>> At the same time, Sections 4 and 4.1 describe which routes they exactly
>> expect:
>>
>>VPLS auto-discovery using BGP, as described in [RFC4761 
>> ] and
>>[RFC6074 ], enables a PE to learn 
>> the VPLS instance membership of
>>other PEs.
>>
>>
>> And:
>>
>>To participate in the VPLS auto-discovery/binding, a PE router that
>>has a given VSI of a given VPLS instance originates a BGP VPLS Intra-
>>AS A-D route and advertises this route in Multiprotocol (MP) IBGP.
>>The route is constructed as described in [RFC4761 
>> ] and [RFC6074 
>> ].
>>
>>
>> These must be VPLS A-D routes, not Leaf routes, and they don't have an
>> Originating Router IP field.
>>
>>... then the local PE MUST use the
>>Originating Router's IP Address information carried in the *Intra-AS
>>A-D route* to add the PE, that originated the route, as a leaf node to
>>the LSP.  This MUST be done irrespective of whether or not the
>>received Intra-AS A-D route carries the PMSI Tunnel attribute.
>>
>>
>> In my understanding, a "leaf" above is specifically *for the RSVP-TE* *case
>> *when a sending PE can't expect any actual leaf routes from others
>> because of the nature of *inclusive *tree construction and it still
>> needs to signal tunnels toward them (thus, needs to know their addresses).
>>
>> So, I still think the errata is correct.
>>
>> P.S. I don't like the idea of using the BGP NH as an identifier of a
>> sender. I think the IETF should provide better tools for that case (as well
>> as for the case of the identification of a service instance from a sender).
>> But this is out-of-scope and cannot be applied right here for the problem
>> in question, so BGP NH is the only option.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ср, 29 янв. 2025 г. в 14:10, Gyan Mishra :
>>
>>>
>>> Hi Jorge
>>>
>>> I reviewed the errata.
>>>
>>> For the RFC 7117 errata I had a question.
>>>
>>> Notes:
>>>
>>> There is no such field as the Origination Router's IP Address in any
>>> VPLS A-D routes (RFC4761, RFC6074). For Intra-AS cases the BGP NH IP
>>> address can be used for the leaf tracking.
>>> Section 9.2,2 describes the VPLS Leaf A-D route which has route key and
>>> originating routers IP address that the source sends Leaf A-D for S-PMSi
>>> w/o PTA attribute present.
>>>
>>> RFC 6514 procedure uses the same leaf a-d route for mLDP P2MP of RSVP-TE
>>> P2MP PTA described in section 4.4 for lead a-d route.
>>>
>>> To me it seems the text is correct in RFC 7117.
>>>
>>> The other errata is correct for RFC 8584.
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind Regards
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> *Gyan Mishra*
>>>
>>> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>>>
>>> *Email [email protected] *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *M 301 502-1347*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 9:24 AM Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) >> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>
 Hi Matthew,

 I checked the two errata and I agree they are correct.
 Thanks.
 Jorge

 From: Matthew Bocci (Nokia) 
 Date: Monday, January 27, 2025 at 3:17 AM
 To: [email protected] 
 Cc: Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) 
 Subject: [bess] Errata on RFC7117 and RFC8584

 WG



 There are a couple of errata on these RFCs that I would appreciate your
 feedback on:



 https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=7977 (Multicast in
 Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS))

- I believe this is correct and can be verified.



 https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=5900 (Framework for
 Ethernet VPN Designated Forwarder Election Extensibility)

- I believe this is correct and can be verified.



 Please let me know by Monday 10th Feb if you have any concerns with
 verifying these.



 Best regards



 Matthew
 ___
 BESS mailing list -- [email protected]
 To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

>>> ___
>>> BESS mailing list -- [email protected]
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>>>
>

[bess] Re: Errata on RFC7117 and RFC8584

2025-01-29 Thread Gyan Mishra

Hi Igor

Good catch on the intra-as / inter-as.

Igor & Jorge

I agree the errata is correct.

Thanks


<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email [email protected] *



*M 301 502-1347*



On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 5:55 AM Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Igor and Ryan,
>
> I also think the errata is correct, and I agree with your analysis, Igor.
>
> Thanks.
> Jorge
>
> From: Igor Malyushkin 
> Date: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 at 2:04 AM
> To: Gyan Mishra 
> Cc: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) , Matthew Bocci
> (Nokia) , [email protected] , Gunter
> van de Velde (Nokia) 
> Subject: Re: [bess] Re: Errata on RFC7117 and RFC8584
>
>
> CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking
> links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional
> information.
>
>
>
> Hi Gian,
>
> Section 9.2.2 cannot be applied, it says that explicitly:
>
>Usage of leaf A-D routes is described in the "*Inter-AS* Inclusive
>P-Multicast Tree A-D/Binding" and "Optimizing Multicast Distribution
>via Selective Trees" sections.
>
>
> The section in question is named "*Intra-AS* Inclusive P-Multicast Tree
> Auto-discovery/Binding", not *Inter*. Please, pay attention to it.
>
> At the same time, Sections 4 and 4.1 describe which routes they exactly
> expect:
>
>VPLS auto-discovery using BGP, as described in [RFC4761 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4761>] and
>[RFC6074 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6074>], enables a PE to learn 
> the VPLS instance membership of
>other PEs.
>
>
> And:
>
>To participate in the VPLS auto-discovery/binding, a PE router that
>has a given VSI of a given VPLS instance originates a BGP VPLS Intra-
>AS A-D route and advertises this route in Multiprotocol (MP) IBGP.
>The route is constructed as described in [RFC4761 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4761>] and [RFC6074 
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6074>].
>
>
> These must be VPLS A-D routes, not Leaf routes, and they don't have an
> Originating Router IP field.
>
>... then the local PE MUST use the
>Originating Router's IP Address information carried in the *Intra-AS
>A-D route* to add the PE, that originated the route, as a leaf node to
>the LSP.  This MUST be done irrespective of whether or not the
>received Intra-AS A-D route carries the PMSI Tunnel attribute.
>
>
> In my understanding, a "leaf" above is specifically *for the RSVP-TE* *case
> *when a sending PE can't expect any actual leaf routes from others
> because of the nature of *inclusive *tree construction and it still needs
> to signal tunnels toward them (thus, needs to know their addresses).
>
> So, I still think the errata is correct.
>
> P.S. I don't like the idea of using the BGP NH as an identifier of a
> sender. I think the IETF should provide better tools for that case (as well
> as for the case of the identification of a service instance from a sender).
> But this is out-of-scope and cannot be applied right here for the problem
> in question, so BGP NH is the only option.
>
>
>
>
> ср, 29 янв. 2025 г. в 14:10, Gyan Mishra :
>
>>
>> Hi Jorge
>>
>> I reviewed the errata.
>>
>> For the RFC 7117 errata I had a question.
>>
>> Notes:
>>
>> There is no such field as the Origination Router's IP Address in any VPLS
>> A-D routes (RFC4761, RFC6074). For Intra-AS cases the BGP NH IP address can
>> be used for the leaf tracking.
>> Section 9.2,2 describes the VPLS Leaf A-D route which has route key and
>> originating routers IP address that the source sends Leaf A-D for S-PMSi
>> w/o PTA attribute present.
>>
>> RFC 6514 procedure uses the same leaf a-d route for mLDP P2MP of RSVP-TE
>> P2MP PTA described in section 4.4 for lead a-d route.
>>
>> To me it seems the text is correct in RFC 7117.
>>
>> The other errata is correct for RFC 8584.
>>
>>
>> Kind Regards
>>
>> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>>
>> *Gyan Mishra*
>>
>> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>>
>> *Email [email protected] *
>>
>>
>>
>> *M 301 502-1347 *
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 9:24 AM Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) > [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Matthew,
>>>
>>> I checked the two errata and I agree they are correct.
>>> Thanks.
>>> Jorge
>>>
>>> From: Matthe

[bess] Re: Errata on RFC7117 and RFC8584

2025-01-29 Thread Igor Malyushkin

Gyan,

I’m sorry for a mistake with your name. I’ll be more attentive next time!

Ср, 29 янв. 2025 г. в 17:04, Igor Malyushkin :

>
> Hi Gian,
>
> Section 9.2.2 cannot be applied, it says that explicitly:
>
>Usage of leaf A-D routes is described in the "*Inter-AS* Inclusive
>P-Multicast Tree A-D/Binding" and "Optimizing Multicast Distribution
>via Selective Trees" sections.
>
>
> The section in question is named "*Intra-AS* Inclusive P-Multicast Tree
> Auto-discovery/Binding", not *Inter*. Please, pay attention to it.
>
> At the same time, Sections 4 and 4.1 describe which routes they exactly
> expect:
>
>VPLS auto-discovery using BGP, as described in [RFC4761 
> ] and
>[RFC6074 ], enables a PE to learn 
> the VPLS instance membership of
>other PEs.
>
>
> And:
>
>To participate in the VPLS auto-discovery/binding, a PE router that
>has a given VSI of a given VPLS instance originates a BGP VPLS Intra-
>AS A-D route and advertises this route in Multiprotocol (MP) IBGP.
>The route is constructed as described in [RFC4761 
> ] and [RFC6074 
> ].
>
>
> These must be VPLS A-D routes, not Leaf routes, and they don't have an
> Originating Router IP field.
>
>... then the local PE MUST use the
>Originating Router's IP Address information carried in the *Intra-AS
>A-D route* to add the PE, that originated the route, as a leaf node to
>the LSP.  This MUST be done irrespective of whether or not the
>received Intra-AS A-D route carries the PMSI Tunnel attribute.
>
>
> In my understanding, a "leaf" above is specifically *for the RSVP-TE* *case
> *when a sending PE can't expect any actual leaf routes from others
> because of the nature of *inclusive *tree construction and it still needs
> to signal tunnels toward them (thus, needs to know their addresses).
>
> So, I still think the errata is correct.
>
> P.S. I don't like the idea of using the BGP NH as an identifier of a
> sender. I think the IETF should provide better tools for that case (as well
> as for the case of the identification of a service instance from a sender).
> But this is out-of-scope and cannot be applied right here for the problem
> in question, so BGP NH is the only option.
>
>
>
>
> ср, 29 янв. 2025 г. в 14:10, Gyan Mishra :
>
>>
>> Hi Jorge
>>
>> I reviewed the errata.
>>
>> For the RFC 7117 errata I had a question.
>>
>> Notes:
>>
>> There is no such field as the Origination Router's IP Address in any VPLS
>> A-D routes (RFC4761, RFC6074). For Intra-AS cases the BGP NH IP address can
>> be used for the leaf tracking.
>> Section 9.2,2 describes the VPLS Leaf A-D route which has route key and
>> originating routers IP address that the source sends Leaf A-D for S-PMSi
>> w/o PTA attribute present.
>>
>> RFC 6514 procedure uses the same leaf a-d route for mLDP P2MP of RSVP-TE
>> P2MP PTA described in section 4.4 for lead a-d route.
>>
>> To me it seems the text is correct in RFC 7117.
>>
>> The other errata is correct for RFC 8584.
>>
>>
>> Kind Regards
>>
>> 
>>
>> *Gyan Mishra*
>>
>> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>>
>> *Email [email protected] *
>>
>>
>>
>> *M 301 502-1347*
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 9:24 AM Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) > [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Matthew,
>>>
>>> I checked the two errata and I agree they are correct.
>>> Thanks.
>>> Jorge
>>>
>>> From: Matthew Bocci (Nokia) 
>>> Date: Monday, January 27, 2025 at 3:17 AM
>>> To: [email protected] 
>>> Cc: Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) 
>>> Subject: [bess] Errata on RFC7117 and RFC8584
>>>
>>> WG
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There are a couple of errata on these RFCs that I would appreciate your
>>> feedback on:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=7977 (Multicast in
>>> Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS))
>>>
>>>- I believe this is correct and can be verified.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=5900 (Framework for
>>> Ethernet VPN Designated Forwarder Election Extensibility)
>>>
>>>- I believe this is correct and can be verified.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please let me know by Monday 10th Feb if you have any concerns with
>>> verifying these.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Matthew
>>> ___
>>> BESS mailing list -- [email protected]
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>>>
>> ___
>> BESS mailing list -- [email protected]
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>>
>
___
BESS mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

[bess] Re: Errata on RFC7117 and RFC8584

2025-01-29 Thread Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)

Hi Igor and Ryan,

I also think the errata is correct, and I agree with your analysis, Igor.

Thanks.
Jorge

From: Igor Malyushkin 
Date: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 at 2:04 AM
To: Gyan Mishra 
Cc: Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) , Matthew Bocci (Nokia) 
, [email protected] , Gunter van de Velde 
(Nokia) 
Subject: Re: [bess] Re: Errata on RFC7117 and RFC8584

CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links 
or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional information.

Hi Gian,

Section 9.2.2 cannot be applied, it says that explicitly:

   Usage of leaf A-D routes is described in the "Inter-AS Inclusive
   P-Multicast Tree A-D/Binding" and "Optimizing Multicast Distribution
   via Selective Trees" sections.

The section in question is named "Intra-AS Inclusive P-Multicast Tree 
Auto-discovery/Binding", not Inter. Please, pay attention to it.

At the same time, Sections 4 and 4.1 describe which routes they exactly expect:

   VPLS auto-discovery using BGP, as described in 
[RFC4761<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4761>] and
   [RFC6074<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6074>], enables a PE to learn the 
VPLS instance membership of
   other PEs.

And:

   To participate in the VPLS auto-discovery/binding, a PE router that
   has a given VSI of a given VPLS instance originates a BGP VPLS Intra-
   AS A-D route and advertises this route in Multiprotocol (MP) IBGP.
   The route is constructed as described in 
[RFC4761<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4761>] and 
[RFC6074<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6074>].

These must be VPLS A-D routes, not Leaf routes, and they don't have an 
Originating Router IP field.

   ... then the local PE MUST use the
   Originating Router's IP Address information carried in the Intra-AS
   A-D route to add the PE, that originated the route, as a leaf node to
   the LSP.  This MUST be done irrespective of whether or not the
   received Intra-AS A-D route carries the PMSI Tunnel attribute.

In my understanding, a "leaf" above is specifically for the RSVP-TE case when a 
sending PE can't expect any actual leaf routes from others because of the 
nature of inclusive tree construction and it still needs to signal tunnels 
toward them (thus, needs to know their addresses).

So, I still think the errata is correct.

P.S. I don't like the idea of using the BGP NH as an identifier of a sender. I 
think the IETF should provide better tools for that case (as well as for the 
case of the identification of a service instance from a sender). But this is 
out-of-scope and cannot be applied right here for the problem in question, so 
BGP NH is the only option.

ср, 29 янв. 2025 г. в 14:10, Gyan Mishra 
mailto:[email protected]>>:

Hi Jorge

I reviewed the errata.

For the RFC 7117 errata I had a question.

Notes:

There is no such field as the Origination Router's IP Address in any VPLS A-D 
routes (RFC4761, RFC6074). For Intra-AS cases the BGP NH IP address can be used 
for the leaf tracking.

Section 9.2,2 describes the VPLS Leaf A-D route which has route key and 
originating routers IP address that the source sends Leaf A-D for S-PMSi w/o 
PTA attribute present.

RFC 6514 procedure uses the same leaf a-d route for mLDP P2MP of RSVP-TE P2MP 
PTA described in section 4.4 for lead a-d route.

To me it seems the text is correct in RFC 7117.

The other errata is correct for RFC 8584.

Kind Regards

[http://ss7.vzw.com/is/image/VerizonWireless/vz-logo-email]<http://www.verizon.com/>

Gyan Mishra

Network Solutions Architect

Email [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>

M 301 502-1347

On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 9:24 AM Jorge Rabadan (Nokia) 
mailto:[email protected]>> 
wrote:
Hi Matthew,

I checked the two errata and I agree they are correct.
Thanks.
Jorge

From: Matthew Bocci (Nokia) 
mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Monday, January 27, 2025 at 3:17 AM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) 
mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: [bess] Errata on RFC7117 and RFC8584

WG

There are a couple of errata on these RFCs that I would appreciate your 
feedback on:

https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=7977 (Multicast in Virtual 
Private LAN Service (VPLS))

  *   I believe this is correct and can be verified.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=5900 (Framework for Ethernet 
VPN Designated Forwarder Election Extensibility)

  *   I believe this is correct and can be verified.

Please let me know by Monday 10th Feb if you have any concerns with verifying 
these.

Best regards

Matthew
___
BESS mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
___

[bess] Re: Errata on RFC7117 and RFC8584

2025-01-29 Thread Igor Malyushkin

Hi Gian,

Section 9.2.2 cannot be applied, it says that explicitly:

   Usage of leaf A-D routes is described in the "*Inter-AS* Inclusive
   P-Multicast Tree A-D/Binding" and "Optimizing Multicast Distribution
   via Selective Trees" sections.

The section in question is named "*Intra-AS* Inclusive P-Multicast Tree
Auto-discovery/Binding", not *Inter*. Please, pay attention to it.

At the same time, Sections 4 and 4.1 describe which routes they exactly
expect:

   VPLS auto-discovery using BGP, as described in [RFC4761
] and
   [RFC6074 ], enables a PE to
learn the VPLS instance membership of
   other PEs.

And:

   To participate in the VPLS auto-discovery/binding, a PE router that
   has a given VSI of a given VPLS instance originates a BGP VPLS Intra-
   AS A-D route and advertises this route in Multiprotocol (MP) IBGP.
   The route is constructed as described in [RFC4761
] and [RFC6074
].

These must be VPLS A-D routes, not Leaf routes, and they don't have an
Originating Router IP field.

   ... then the local PE MUST use the
   Originating Router's IP Address information carried in the *Intra-AS
   A-D route* to add the PE, that originated the route, as a leaf node to
   the LSP.  This MUST be done irrespective of whether or not the
   received Intra-AS A-D route carries the PMSI Tunnel attribute.

In my understanding, a "leaf" above is specifically *for the RSVP-TE* *case
*when a sending PE can't expect any actual leaf routes from others because
of the nature of *inclusive *tree construction and it still needs to signal
tunnels toward them (thus, needs to know their addresses).

So, I still think the errata is correct.

P.S. I don't like the idea of using the BGP NH as an identifier of a
sender. I think the IETF should provide better tools for that case (as well
as for the case of the identification of a service instance from a sender).
But this is out-of-scope and cannot be applied right here for the problem
in question, so BGP NH is the only option.

ср, 29 янв. 2025 г. в 14:10, Gyan Mishra :

>
> Hi Jorge
>
> I reviewed the errata.
>
> For the RFC 7117 errata I had a question.
>
> Notes:
>
> There is no such field as the Origination Router's IP Address in any VPLS
> A-D routes (RFC4761, RFC6074). For Intra-AS cases the BGP NH IP address can
> be used for the leaf tracking.
> Section 9.2,2 describes the VPLS Leaf A-D route which has route key and
> originating routers IP address that the source sends Leaf A-D for S-PMSi
> w/o PTA attribute present.
>
> RFC 6514 procedure uses the same leaf a-d route for mLDP P2MP of RSVP-TE
> P2MP PTA described in section 4.4 for lead a-d route.
>
> To me it seems the text is correct in RFC 7117.
>
> The other errata is correct for RFC 8584.
>
>
> Kind Regards
>
> 
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>
> *Email [email protected] *
>
>
>
> *M 301 502-1347*
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 9:24 AM Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)  [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Matthew,
>>
>> I checked the two errata and I agree they are correct.
>> Thanks.
>> Jorge
>>
>> From: Matthew Bocci (Nokia) 
>> Date: Monday, January 27, 2025 at 3:17 AM
>> To: [email protected] 
>> Cc: Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) 
>> Subject: [bess] Errata on RFC7117 and RFC8584
>>
>> WG
>>
>>
>>
>> There are a couple of errata on these RFCs that I would appreciate your
>> feedback on:
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=7977 (Multicast in
>> Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS))
>>
>>- I believe this is correct and can be verified.
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=5900 (Framework for
>> Ethernet VPN Designated Forwarder Election Extensibility)
>>
>>- I believe this is correct and can be verified.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please let me know by Monday 10th Feb if you have any concerns with
>> verifying these.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>>
>>
>> Matthew
>> ___
>> BESS mailing list -- [email protected]
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>>
> ___
> BESS mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>
___
BESS mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

[bess] Re: Errata on RFC7117 and RFC8584

2025-01-28 Thread Gyan Mishra

Hi Jorge

I reviewed the errata.

For the RFC 7117 errata I had a question.

Notes:

There is no such field as the Origination Router's IP Address in any VPLS
A-D routes (RFC4761, RFC6074). For Intra-AS cases the BGP NH IP address can
be used for the leaf tracking.
Section 9.2,2 describes the VPLS Leaf A-D route which has route key and
originating routers IP address that the source sends Leaf A-D for S-PMSi
w/o PTA attribute present.

RFC 6514 procedure uses the same leaf a-d route for mLDP P2MP of RSVP-TE
P2MP PTA described in section 4.4 for lead a-d route.

To me it seems the text is correct in RFC 7117.

The other errata is correct for RFC 8584.

Kind Regards

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email [email protected] *

*M 301 502-1347*

On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 9:24 AM Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)  wrote:

> Hi Matthew,
>
> I checked the two errata and I agree they are correct.
> Thanks.
> Jorge
>
> From: Matthew Bocci (Nokia) 
> Date: Monday, January 27, 2025 at 3:17 AM
> To: [email protected] 
> Cc: Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) 
> Subject: [bess] Errata on RFC7117 and RFC8584
>
> WG
>
>
>
> There are a couple of errata on these RFCs that I would appreciate your
> feedback on:
>
>
>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=7977 (Multicast in
> Virtual Private LAN Service (VPLS))
>
>- I believe this is correct and can be verified.
>
>
>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=5900 (Framework for
> Ethernet VPN Designated Forwarder Election Extensibility)
>
>- I believe this is correct and can be verified.
>
>
>
> Please let me know by Monday 10th Feb if you have any concerns with
> verifying these.
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
>
>
> Matthew
> ___
> BESS mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>
___
BESS mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

[bess] Re: Errata on RFC7117 and RFC8584

2025-01-28 Thread Jorge Rabadan (Nokia)

Hi Matthew,

I checked the two errata and I agree they are correct.
Thanks.
Jorge

From: Matthew Bocci (Nokia) 
Date: Monday, January 27, 2025 at 3:17 AM
To: [email protected] 
Cc: Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) 
Subject: [bess] Errata on RFC7117 and RFC8584

WG

There are a couple of errata on these RFCs that I would appreciate your 
feedback on:

https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=7977 (Multicast in Virtual 
Private LAN Service (VPLS))

  *   I believe this is correct and can be verified.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?eid=5900 (Framework for Ethernet 
VPN Designated Forwarder Election Extensibility)

  *   I believe this is correct and can be verified.

Please let me know by Monday 10th Feb if you have any concerns with verifying 
these.

Best regards

Matthew
___
BESS mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

[bess] Re: Errata on RFC7117 and RFC8584

[bess] Re: Errata on RFC7117 and RFC8584

[bess] Re: Errata on RFC7117 and RFC8584

[bess] Re: Errata on RFC7117 and RFC8584

[bess] Re: Errata on RFC7117 and RFC8584

[bess] Re: Errata on RFC7117 and RFC8584

[bess] Re: Errata on RFC7117 and RFC8584

7 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information