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

["Mahesh Sivakumar (masivaku)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eric,

>> 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.

I was thinking along the same lines so that we have the flexibility on the
Ingress BFR to use either the originating router or the BFR prefix while
tracking.
But do you envision a real use case at the ingress BFIR for using the BFR prefix
in the PTA given that the BFIR can use the originating router IP address to
match the appropriate S-PMSI A-D route.
Accordingly, should we make the BIER-pfx in the PTA optional?

Thanks
Mahesh





On 6/21/17, 8:39 AM, "BIER on behalf of Eric C Rosen" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> 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 
>document".
>
>> 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.



>
>_______________________________________________
>BIER mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier