Hi, I haven't seen any response to my questions from the authors. I'd greatly appreciate answers to help me understand this draft better and if I support the adoption by the BESS WG.
Regards, Greg On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 2:19 PM Greg Mirsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Authors, > thank you for the well-written and very interesting document. I read it > and have some questions: > > - the Abstract states that > > Existing multicast techniques assume there are no > redundant sources sending the same flow to the same IP multicast > group, and, in case there were redundant sources, the receiver's > application would deal with the received duplicated packets. > > That doesn't seem to be entirely accurate considering the content and > scope of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover/>. > > > - Section 3 defines the BGP extension is the support of the redundant > multicast source. How these are related to the Standby PE Community, > defined in draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover? > - Section 5.1 points to an optional use of BFD to detect the > failure in a multicast tunnel. Do you see any differences with how RFC 8562 > being applied to monitor the status of a multicast tunnel in MVPN, as > described in draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-fast-failover? Could procedures defined > in the latter document be used for multicast services in EVPN networks and, > in particular, when there is a redundant multicast source? > > Much appreciate your consideration and looking forward to your response. > > Regards, > Greg > > On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 9:56 AM Tarek Saad <tsaad= > [email protected]> wrote: > >> I support the adoption. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Tarek >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 12/1/20, 4:31 AM, "BESS on behalf of [email protected]" < >> [email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hello, >> >> >> >> This email begins a two-weeks WG adoption poll for >> draft-skr-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source >> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-skr-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source> >> [1]. >> >> >> >> Please review the draft and post any comments to the BESS working group >> list. >> >> >> >> We are also polling for knowledge of any undisclosed IPR that applies to >> this document, to ensure that IPR has been disclosed in compliance with >> IETF IPR rules (see RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details). >> >> >> >> If you are listed as an author or a contributor of this document, please >> respond to this email and indicate whether or not you are aware of any >> relevant undisclosed IPR, copying the BESS mailing list. The document will >> not progress without answers from all of the authors and contributors. >> >> >> >> Currently, there are no IPR disclosures against this document. >> >> >> >> If you are not listed as an author or a contributor, then please >> explicitly respond only if you are aware of any IPR that has not yet been >> disclosed in conformance with IETF rules. >> >> >> >> This poll for adoption closes on 15th December 2020. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Matthew and Stephane >> >> >> >> [1] >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-skr-bess-evpn-redundant-mcast-source/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Juniper Business Use Only >> _______________________________________________ >> BESS mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess >> >
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
