Hi, Thanks for the review. Please see NB> below for comments.
On 7/31/17, 6:43 AM, "Henning Rogge" <hro...@gmail.com> wrote: I found a few things in the draft that in my opinion need a bit more work... First it seems that Section 2.3 (Route) is a bit out of sync with the BNF later in the document, it should at least mention matching the source-IP address of the IP headers. NB> Good point. I’ll add that. Second (if I read the BNF in Section 6 correctly), the match for a route seems to be one of the list "ip address, MPLS label, MAC address, interface". I think it should be possible to combine "interface" or "mac address" with an IP address to restrict the focus of a route, e.g. "match fe80::1 from interface X". NB> Yes it’s possible to do that, but that becomes a traditional firewall filter. I think that is more for draft-ietf-i2rs-fb-rib-info-model. Last, I wonder if multicast routing needs more different types of matchers, e.g. a match on the TTL of the IP packet to limit the range of a multicast group. There is also problem of multicast routing in MANETs (see RFC 6621) which can use a hash-based duplicate detection to determine if it forwards or drops a multicast packet. Would this be out of scope for the draft? NB> The draft actually only touches on multicast and does not do justice to it. Multicast by itself is a big beast. TTL is just one of the few things that can be added. The authors had initially thought of leaving traditional multicast to a need based extension. The high-level intent is to have some draft extend <ip-route-attributes> or <ethernet-route-attributes> to added specialized functionality. Thanks Nitin _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs