Hi Eric,
On 2018-10-05 04:15, Eric Rosen wrote:
>> 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.
Thanks.
>> 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.
Fair enough. I suggest adding a version of those two sentences in the
Introduction. Otherwise you can bet on this point being raised by the
IESG anyway.
Regards
Brian
> 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
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
