Re: [bess] RFC9251

Hi Mankamana, Thanks a lot for answering my question. Regards, Nitsan From: Mankamana Mishra (mankamis) Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2024 2:00 AM To: Nitsan Dolev ; rfc9...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: RFC9251 Hi, The forwarding rule for {S,G} or {*,G} remains the same as IGMP

Re: [bess] RFC9251

Hi, The forwarding rule for {S,G} or {*,G} remains the same as IGMP V3 spec. Only difference is about setting up tunnels between EVPN PE. Source IP address for Querier will be picked from local config or IRB. But this spec utilizes existing Querier config and procedures from IGMP

Re: [bess] rfc9251

Hi Shasha Proxy querier behavior expects implementation to generate IGMP join locally on LAN after getting SMET joins. IP address depends on implementation. It can pick IP address from IRB or internal querier configuration. Is there any specific case that has issue? Mankamana From: Alexander

Re: [bess] rfc9251

Hi all, Yet another question related to RFC 9251. Section 4.2 of RFC 9251 says: As mentioned in the previous sections, each PE MUST have proxy querier functionality for the following reasons: 1. to enable the collection of EVPN

Re: [bess] rfc9251

Hi all, Re-sending to the authors since the address : rfc9...@ietf.org is invalid. Regards, Sasha From: Alexander Vainshtein Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2024 2:01 PM To: rfc9...@ietf.org Cc: bess@ietf.org Subject: rfc9251 Hi all, I have a question regarding expected DP