Toerless, Thanks for the comments. After thinking about your feedback on RFC4610 a bit, I'm not sure that case is applicable here. Consider the 2 directions of interworking:
1) MSDP SA/AnycastRP_PIM_Register -> MVPN SA 2) MVPN SA -> MSDP SA/AnycastRP_PIM_Register As I understand, #1 is already covered by RFC6513/6514. #2 is the missing piece that this draft attempts to address. I don't believe #2 will be applicable for RFC4610, 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. Hope this is clear, and let me know if I'm missing anything. -Lenny | -----Original Message----- | From: BESS [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Toerless Eckert | Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 9:43 PM | To: [email protected] | Cc: [email protected] | Subject: [bess] bess: draft-zzhang-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation | | 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 to fix the same problem not only for | MSDP SA but also RFC4610 and probably accordingly change the draft name. | | Cross-posted to mboned (sorry) because there where a couple of MBoned | participants expressing support for the draft in BESS and may like me not | be BESS regulars. | | Cheers | Toerless _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
