> For the "source replication" description of our draft (section3.2), I can add > the following to make it consistent with the LISP approach. Is it OK? > "The method of receiver-sites registration for a particular multicast-group > described in [LISP-Signal-Free] can be used for NVO3. The registrations from > different receiver-sites can be merged at the Multicast Service Node (MSN of > Section 3.3) or the NVA to assemble a multicast-replication-list inclusive of > all remote NVEs to which receivers for a particular multicast-group are > attached. The replication-list for each specific multicast entry is > maintained either by MSN or NVA. > The receiver-sites registration is achieved by egress NVEs performing the > IGMP/MLD snooping to maintain which attached Tenant Systems have subscribed > to a given IP multicast stream. When the members of a multicast group are > outside the NVO3 domain, it is necessary for NVO3 domain gateways to keep > track of the remote members of each multicast group.” > > Please let me know if this description is good enough?
The description is fine but the term "multicast-group" is probably too specific and does not include IGMPv3 and MLDv2 (S,G) specific entries. I would change "multicast-group" to "joined-multicast-entry" and then define what a "joined-multicast-entry" can be. Dino _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
