Hi all, Re-sending to the authors since the address : rfc9...@ietf.org<mailto:rfc9...@ietf.org> is invalid.
Regards, Sasha From: Alexander Vainshtein Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2024 2:01 PM To: rfc9...@ietf.org Cc: bess@ietf.org Subject: rfc9251 Hi all, I have a question regarding expected DP behavior in conjunction with RFC 9521: Are the PEs that support this RFC expected to decrement TTL in IP headers of multicast IP packets they forward? This question is equally applicable to the "last mile" PEs that have received IGMP/MLD Joins and advertised them as SMET routes, and to the "first mile" PEs that receive and install these SMET routes. The context for this question is my understanding that multicast IP traffic that is forwarded based on IMET route (e.g., to the PEs that have not advertised ability to advertise SMET routes) does not undergo TTL decrement. I have failed to find an answer to my question in the text of RFC 9251. Your timely feedback would be highly appreciated. Regards, and lots of thanks in advance, Sasha Disclaimer This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of Ribbon Communications Inc. and its Affiliates that is confidential and/or proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and then delete all copies, including any attachments.
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
