I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The 
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as 
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special 
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. 
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see 

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would 
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call 
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by 
updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-bess-evpn-prefix-advertisement-10.txt
Reviewer: Geoff Huston
Review Date: 12 April 2018
IETF LC End Date: not known
Intended Status: Standards Tract


I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved 
before publication.


Major Issues:

No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

The Introduction (section 2) should preceded the Terminology and all be placed 
in Section 1. Sections 2.1 and 2.2 appear to be a Problem Statement and should 
be the content of Section 2. Problem Statement.
The Terminology appears to include a mix of conventional acronym expansion 
which could easily be dealt with by explicit expansion on first use. (for 
example. the text contains "If the term Tenant System (TS) is used..." and 
there is probably no need to explicitly call out this acronym in a terminology 

There is a phrase in the Introduction that seems out of place: "Once the need 
for a new EVPN route type is justified, ...". I suggest dropping the phrase on 
the assumption that Sections 2.1 and 2.2 have indeed justified this problem and 
the proposed solution.

I am confused between the term "IP address length (IPL)" and "IP Prefix Length" 
- I an unsure if IPL is an Address family Identifier to distinguish between 
IPv4 and IPv6 addresses or some other term. Perhaps the authors may want to use 
more conventional terms when appropriate, such as “AFI" rather than “IPL” if 
that is really the underlying meaning of this field.

In Figure 3 IP Prefix Route Type, why is an Address Family Identifier missing 
from the data structure?

I would not call myself an expert in the area of intra-subnet connectivity in 
an MPLS and/or NVO-based networks, so I am not in a good position to comment on 
the technical quality of the specification in this draft. The material is 
dense, and it is unclear to me if the textual-based description of handling 
actions is complete. It is also unclear to me if the use cases sslected in this 
draft are inclusive or just represent some random selection of uses cases from 
a far larger pool of potential use cases.

BESS mailing list

Reply via email to