> Minor issues: > ------------- > > As I understand it, if a network only partially supports the new > (LIR-pF) flag, it doesn't work properly. So we find at the end of > section 2: > > ...the ingress node can conclude > that the egress node originating that Leaf A-D route does not support > the LIR-pF flag. > > The software at the ingress node SHOULD detect this, and should have > a way of alerting the operator that the deployment is not properly > configured. > > I don't see why this is only a SHOULD, and I don't see why the operator > alert is not a MUST too. Surely the operator always needs to be alerted?
Good point, I have changed this to: The software at the ingress node MUST detect this, and MUST have a way of alerting the operator that the deployment is not properly configured. > I agree with the point raised in the Routing Area review > (be explicit about the updated sections of RFC 6514, 6625, > and 7524). The clarifications and extensions may affect the procedures for originating and receiving/processing S-PMSI A-D routes and Leaf A-D routes. These procedures are discussed in many different places in the updated drafts. I don't believe there is any value in having the authors of mvpn-expl-track go through those drafts to try to make a list of all the places where S-PMSI A-D routes and/or Leaf A-D routes are discussed. If we attempted to do so, we'd surely miss a few places and thereby introduce bugs into the spec. The information currently in the document is sufficient to enable anyone who understands the updated references to figure out what needs to be done. _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
