Dino, We noticed another comment from you that wasn’t addressed by draft-ietf-nvo3-mcast-framework-06. (We believe this is the last comment from the MBONED peer review process).
You said: > I just have one minor comment. Regarding the second paragraph: > > <PastedGraphic-2.png> > > Using LISP-signal-free does not mean the head-end must do replication. The > draft indicates that a mapping system is used to decide where packets go. If > the mapping database indicates that packets are encapsulated to multicast > RLOCs, or unicast RLOCs, or both in one set, so be it. > > And note if there is a single multicast RLOC, then there is no replication > happening at the head-end, just one packet encapsulting multicast in > multicast. Since there is no better section in this draft to address this, how about we add a NOTE at the end of the paragraph to emphasize that it may not be the NVE that does the replication if [LIST-Signal-Free] approach is used? For the support of application-specific multicast traffic, a method similar to that of receiver-sites registration for a particular multicast group described in [LISP-Signal-Free] can be used. The registrations from different receiver-sites can be merged at the NVA, which can construct a multicast replication-list inclusive of all NVEs to which receivers for a particular multicast group are attached. The replication-list for each specific multicast group is maintained by the NVA. Note: Using LISP-signal-free does not necessarily mean the head-end (i.e. NVE) must do replication. If the mapping database (i.e. NVA) indicates that packets are encapsulated to multicast RLOCs, then there is no replication happening at the NVE. Please let us know if it is not acceptable. Thank you very much. Linda From: nvo3 [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Anoop Ghanwani Sent: 2016年5月24日 14:17 To: Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> Cc: Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) <[email protected]>; MBONED WG <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [nvo3] [MBONED] NVO3 Multicast Framework Hi Dino, Thanks for pointing that out. Indeed that is not specific to head end replication. We can move that text to a separate section that is referenced by the sections for all of the multicast methods. Let me know if that would address the comment. Thanks, Anoop On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Sorry, I thought I had. NVo3, see my comments below. Dino > On May 24, 2016, at 6:14 AM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Hi Dino > > Could you copy NVO3 on your comments, please? > > Thanks > > Matthew > > From: EXT Dino Farinacci <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Date: Monday, 16 May 2016 at 23:31 > To: Leonard Giuliano <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc: MBONED WG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Matthew Bocci > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, > Benson Schliesser <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: Re: [MBONED] NVO3 Multicast Framework > > I just have one minor comment. Regarding the second paragraph: > > <PastedGraphic-2.png> > > Using LISP-signal-free does not mean the head-end must do replication. The > draft indicates that a mapping system is used to decide where packets go. If > the mapping database indicates that packets are encapsulated to multicast > RLOCs, or unicast RLOCs, or both in one set, so be it. > > And note if there is a single multicast RLOC, then there is no replication > happening at the head-end, just one packet encapsulting multicast in > multicast. > > So what is written above is true, but it may be associated with an incorrect > section title. > > Dino > >> On May 12, 2016, at 2:52 PM, Leonard Giuliano >> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> MBONED, >> >> The following draft recently went through WG last call in the NVO3 working >> group: >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-nvo3-mcast-framework/ >> >> This doc covers multicast in data center overlay networks. As you know, it >> is part of our charter in MBONED to provide feedback to other relevant >> working groups. Please review and send any comments to the NVO3 WG mailing >> list ([email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>)- all comments will be greatly >> appreciated by NVO3. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MBONED mailing list >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned > > <PastedGraphic-2.png> _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
