The following errata report has been verified for RFC10018, "Multicast and Ethernet VPN with Segment Routing Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) and Ingress Replication"
-------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://errata.rfc-editor.org/eid9139/ -------------------------------------- Status: Verified Type: Editorial Reported by: Paul Aitken <[email protected]> Date Reported: Aug. 17, 2026, 7:58 p.m. Verified by: Gunter Van de Velde (IESG) Section 4.1.1.1.1. and 4.2.1. says: Original Text ------------- 4.1.1.1.1.) "When an SR P2MP P-tunnel is not shared across MVPNs, i.e., there is one-to-one association between an EVI and an SR P2MP P-tunnel, the MPLS Label field is set to zero as per [RFC6514]. In this case, the SR-MPLS Tree-SID of the PTI of the SR P2MP Policy advertised in the P-tunnel is sufficient to identify the MVPN instance for delivering the payload." 4.2.1.) "PE1 will encapsulate the MVPN payload into the MPLS label stack <L1, L2, L3, L10> with L10 as the BoS label." Corrected Text -------------- 4.1.1.1.1.) "When an SR P2MP P-tunnel is not shared across EVIs, i.e., there is one-to-one association between an EVI and an SR P2MP P-tunnel, the MPLS Label field is set to zero as per [RFC6514]. In this case, the SR-MPLS Tree-SID of the PTI of the SR P2MP Policy advertised in the P-tunnel is sufficient to identify the EVI for delivering the payload." 4.2.1.) "PE1 will encapsulate the EVPN payload into the MPLS label stack <L1, L2, L3, L10> with L10 as the BoS label." Notes ----- Claim from Submitter: ============== In section 4.1.1.1.1, two occurrences of "MVPN" appear to be copied from Section 3.2.1.1. In section 4.2.1, "MVPN payload" should be "EVPN payload" (copied from 3.3.1). AD Review Notes: ============ * In Section 4.1.1.1.1, the two uses of “MVPN” are inconsistent with the EVPN context and with the remainder of the section, which describes sharing the P-tunnel across EVIs and using the label to identify the corresponding EVI. * Similarly, Section 4.2.1 describes EVPN ingress replication, including an IMET A-D route and an EVPN BUM label. The payload is therefore an EVPN payload, not an MVPN payload. * The proposed corrections accurately resolve these copy-and-paste errors and do not change the specified protocol behavior. -------------------------------------- RFC10018 (draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-evpn-sr-p2mp) -------------------------------------- Title : Multicast and Ethernet VPN with Segment Routing Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) and Ingress Replication Publication Date : August 2026 Author(s) : R. Parekh, Ed., D. Voyer, Ed., C. Filsfils, H. Bidgoli, Z. Zhang Category : Proposed Standard Source : bess (rtg) Stream : IETF _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
