Dino, Thank you very much for the review.
We have updated the draft with your agreed resolutions: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nvo3-mcast-framework-07.txt Linda -----Original Message----- From: Dino Farinacci [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 7:16 PM To: Mike McBride <[email protected]> Cc: Linda Dunbar <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [MBONED] [nvo3] NVO3 Multicast Framework The wording looks good to me. Thanks. Dino > On Feb 14, 2017, at 3:04 PM, Mike McBride <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Dino, > > Are you good with the suggested wording below? We are trying to wrap this up > this week. If you aren't good please suggest alternative wording. > > Hope all is well with you and the family. > > thanks, > mike > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Linda Dunbar <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> 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]> wrote: > > > > Hi Dino > > > > Could you copy NVO3 on your comments, please? > > > > Thanks > > > > Matthew > > > > From: EXT Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> > > Date: Monday, 16 May 2016 at 23:31 > > To: Leonard Giuliano <[email protected]> > > Cc: MBONED WG <[email protected]>, Matthew Bocci > > <[email protected]>, Benson Schliesser > > <[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]> 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])- all comments will be greatly appreciated by > >> NVO3. > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> MBONED mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned > > > > <PastedGraphic-2.png> > > _______________________________________________ > nvo3 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > MBONED mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mboned > > _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
