Re: [bess] [pim] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-mvpn-05

"Swadesh Agrawal (swaagraw)" <> Wed, 21 June 2017 18:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3025012943D; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 11:22:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SmL3-LRrPon1; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 11:22:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1374412943B; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 11:22:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=3104; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1498069358; x=1499278958; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=Pi+ikqhYs0sg1Xgr9iv1IrhtBW2baEbvj47jROmGXMk=; b=N+QfrkhukcQ4F2BU2I/UXDaK7oXUnCiDl/ATIhpjrhr2tmsywaWPb7qi 2tAFLop2pdlFS9zYUicsLcx4YiTtnqciB5YLDoqqAmESyxhmRq20W0y+0 fCHGJQ2JAEZDEGWgn6Hf0eOmPpv4HtH0bDqU0UqPv/ZbzUTHci9LG46ph I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,370,1493683200"; d="scan'208";a="442026465"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 21 Jun 2017 18:22:37 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v5LIMbeX032422 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:22:37 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 13:22:36 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 13:22:36 -0500
From: "Swadesh Agrawal (swaagraw)" <>
To: Eric C Rosen <>, Stig Venaas <>, Greg Shepherd <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [bess] [pim] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-mvpn-05
Thread-Index: AQHS6qUdGDAnORLd60WY5cKiUvs8zqIvf+SA
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:22:36 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.22.0.170515
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [bess] [pim] WGLC: draft-ietf-bier-mvpn-05
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: BGP-Enabled ServiceS working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 18:22:40 -0000

It can be achieved by having ipv6 explicit NULL in data path. We may not need different label to identify AFI.


On 6/21/17, 8:39 AM, "BESS on behalf of Eric C Rosen" < on behalf of> wrote:

    Stig, thanks for your comments.+
    On 6/19/2017 5:47 PM, Stig Venaas wrote:
    > Hi
    > I think this draft is mostly ready. I just have a couple of comments.
    > In section 1:
    >     This revision of the document does not specify the procedures
    >     necessary to support MVPN customers that are using BIDIR-PIM.  Those
    >     procedures will be added in a future revision.
    > Remove this text?
    We'll probably just change this to something like "Procedures to support 
    MVPN customers that are using BIDIR-PIM are outside the scope of this 
    > Section 2.1.  MPLS Label
    > Should one use different labels to distinguish address families in the same VRF?
    Nice catch.  The customer's address family is identified by the AFI of 
    the MCAST-VPN routes.  There should be a requirement that a given router 
    MUST NOT originate two x-PMSI A-D routes with different AFIs but with 
    the same upstream-assigned label in their respective PTAs.
    > The PTA must be present in Leaf A-D routes so one can know the BIER
    > prefix of the router joining. It might be obvious, but I think it is
    > worth pointing it out. It is specified for IR (in RFC 7988 section
    > 4.1.1 it says: "Leaf A-D route MUST also contain a PTA"...
    For IR, the PTA is needed because each egress PE needs to advertise a 
    downstream-assigned label.
    For BIER, I was thinking that the BFR-Prefix of the egress PE should 
    appear in the "originating router's IP address" field of the Leaf A-D 
    NLRI.  However, it is probably better to allow the "originating router's 
    IP address" to be different than the BFR-Prefix, and in that case to use 
    the Leaf A-D route's PTA to specify the BFR-Prefix.
    BESS mailing list