Hi authors, I review draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-extranet-02, and have following questions. I would appreciate if you could help to clarify.
Section 3.5.2. the word "EC" should be expanded when first used in the document. Section 3.5.2. what's the purpose to advertise Extranet Source Extended Community? I understand the first PE receives the Extranet Source EC will allocate proper RT to the UMH-eligible route, but what will other PE do when receiving route with or without Extranet Source EC? Are they the same? Section 3.6. what is the requirement for "extranet separation", MAY, SHOULD or MUST be used in this draft? From my understanding, it SHOULD or MUST be used for I-PMSI or S-PMSI (C-*, C-*), otherwise, the egress PE does not know whether to do tunnel checking. Section 4.1.2. If VRF-S does not contain both extranet C-sources and non-extranet C-sources, this condition holds automatically. Should the above be: If VRF-S does not contain extranet C-sources or non-extranet C-sources, this condition holds automatically. Section 5.2.2 For IR P-Tunnel, the VRF-R needs to send I-PMSI A-D, and imported by VRF-S, right? Section 5.2.2 If it is desired to support extranet while also using IR to instantiate the PMSIs, an alternative is to use (C-*,C-*) S-PMSIs instead of I-PMSIs. Should the above "extranet" be "non-extranet"? If it is extranet, tunnel checking is still necessary, then there is still tunnel type restriction (MP2P LSP could not be used). Section 7.5 It would be valuable to say explicitly when tunnel checking will be enabled. The C-flow with "extranet separation" EC should enable tunnel checking. Regards Lizhong
