Jeffrey, Lots of thanks for your email. I have missed IEYTF-119 in Brisbane and was not aware of the proposed scope of work on 6514bis. Please see some specific responses inline below.
Regards, Sasha From: Zhang, Zhaohui (Jeffrey) <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 6:46 PM To: Alexander Vainshtein <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: A couple of short comments on draft-ietf-bess-rfc6514bis Hi Sasha, Thanks for your comments. Please see zzh> below for some clarification. From: Alexander Vainshtein <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 9:55 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: A couple of short comments on draft-ietf-be [Image removed by sender.]<https://report.mimecastcybergraph.com/?magiclink=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.services.mimecast.com%2Foauth2%2Fauthorize%3Fresponse_type%3Dcode%26client_id%3Do20nRkVXf7VUVnANkXhoOwGytEwGN0YAlyeDJn7oBTGNl2kN%26state%3DeyJhbGciOiJSU0EtT0FFUC0yNTYiLCJlbmMiOiJBMjU2R0NNIn0.Z4b2f21aj-BjgkR-K10ENWbLve4d1q3O-ETMbxJuhfDVsFaXXuOjFEQzpul1iRaFKk6JwicQ-I_JPuUJd7gnrJybMdK4c47z7iwnbEFCasMrt1Sg0DoOfZsGj5XK6Yf6ww68OXfwFfMaiFmHz4Mgx9iPaZ3Dee9RTtmEhpYE0UB1dPEroJsptq5Ev79cOAt3HbWKVPFfSRpGR3VX8Xo1qsPFniA92lLGZRYEzTLrW5_hlWnXAlw8IZagLUTZTCG9EE33tLizuofGLRKaUjRz_tDwtETLdKXg_li_5JffOW3c_YzDflhUCGDWJQWghlMkAnGW9sj2ZdcAAxuZVpzW4Q.xchrMlyU_hMMkpVz.SyGcquXf58T6SXGsXRDpVAcI1yhbgMJgHxaDXWtIdo4K9XG5kVnWQ8Wi4dgk-1fM9KaEukWfW4Q-9GRQkkNBV2vHlaGZNOEdazVgX5b2snHxVrzjR0E0ZWEHv58Zi384vbBahX5A-s1IT-pOBuaEbm2QMYfFROdOiqvEPMwJv5iqAgE1fwo-zlGWN6TbKaYHHtQRHga5J0EzHhfi35YUt1uzD8-kYIR5KjlTVtNn8_qDJNRQjZKP7_SBFqkQhAjNq2UIF_d7tY13Jn45936Iq7ReZF5tK_bIT16h391Qq-dNSW-iRYxmW6hsysAq77349PyRC5w8CGDosASSmriCHnYqf4aMDb8YLGvlNspIUZ_xP22FeyVqyr8GmQDZqrs-ny5vXa35GjiZAkqDBN7pPx1iJURdmVYPKpgGJ9fd9PAfhk2NaqSLnDMnlzNQXaS3uB94srw7psu6WL8KQASualJpG4nNwOQQO6UwdylWdvFwqWYrEM8ZcZtmb6rMM6r9JFlOkuqnEDb2ZxIScmPTR_sAyier-9xZrgO9fhcVCSoV07eI-wSvKjbA0JT2Exar9ZzpacI-Z-G7mIweg_cuXjHzvkYXwnTYr_tSVlQw4oLt5Oi2mM1SKweksm7tNYF3wAUuQQHZAqjbDgK8fci1R1nnqqZPUTuPauVMrBVeCIAHg9gvvk2TM7ocNeVCGWknvfTlEvByercuCrpzb4G858UrS2hj-cE3NrsQqYkGgRPiSYuN4sKMv56uVjmL_hTfOTIGUgyDfgZbX6oyclGFcoufFaIxmPy3T1PsKQgRCEaMj231Ty2975H0yM8QSgCe2-RgGJsmUoKAdnCMzwccxRwMng.EAoOWn8sbvRzItM26inApQ%26redirect_uri%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Freport.mimecastcybergraph.com%2Fcallback> CGBANNERINDICATOR Hi Sasha, Thanks for your comments. Please see zzh> below for some clarification. From: Alexander Vainshtein <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 9:55 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: A couple of short comments on draft-ietf-bess-rfc6514bis Hi, I have looked up the 00-revision of the 6514bis draft<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-bess-rfc6514bis-00__;!!NpxR!j8rByoiwA2OTFYATQspB3Lf3ZnZny9QAZs4YsIssQ6nytaz9S-canxR140f_BZnr7G6QxoTg1tIqBj6wkEOWfTo5asm7$>, and I have a few short comments: 1. I think that the bis draft should contain a list of differences from the original RFC, but I do not find it in this case Zzh> Yes, we will add a section to list the differences. [[Sasha]] Great! 2. Specifically, none of the following is mentioned: a. RFC 6515 about usage of infrastructure addresses in the NLRI of the MCAST-VPN routes. This is very important because my colleagues have encountered a certain TEQ that reports S-PMSI routes with AFI 2 and IPv4 Originating Router's address as malformed b. RFC 6625 (wildcard) Zzh> The draft is still a work in progress. The above-mentioned items are planned but have not been done yet, and https://github.com/zzhang2003/RFC6514bis/blob/main/WorkItems.md<https://github.com/zzhang2003/RFC6514bis/blob/main/WorkItems.md> tracks all the work items that we planned. [[Sasha]] I have looked up the list of work items and see that both these items are valid. My interest in (a) above was specifically triggered by the report that some widely used TEQ treats routes with AFI = 2 and SAFI = MCAST_VPN as malformed if the Originating Router IP address in their NLRI is an IPv4 address. 3. I believe we have earlier discussed the problems associated with using the same RD in MVRF in different PEs to which a certain C-S is multihomed. But in the draft, just as in the original FC 6514, the requirement for unique RDs is limited to just the case of non-congruent unicast and multicast routing topologies. Zzh> I don’t think we planned to loosen the requirement of unique RDs. Rather, even for GTM (where currently 0:0 RD can be used), unique non-0:0 RDs must be used in certain situations. The relevant text was in the pre-WG -01 revision (search for “GTM”) but temporarily removed in the -00 WG revision due to an IPR declaration glitch, but it will be added back in a future revision with proper IPR declaration. [[Sasha]] I was thinking about strengthening the requirement of unique RDs. But I did not find any mention of this in the list of work items. Zzh> In short, we still have quite some work to do 😊 Zzh> Thanks. Zzh> Jeffrey Your timely feedback would be highly appreciated Regards, 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 -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
