Re: AD review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-etree-frwk

["Bitar, Nabil N" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lucy,
Just to be clear for me, are you agreeing with the text that Adrian
suggested on the definition of the E-tree service?

Thanks,
Nabil



On 7/1/14 12:59 PM, "Lucy yong" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>[Lucy] Hi Adrian,
>
>
>
>>> Section 2.2 has
>>> 
>>>    An E-Tree service has one or more Root ACs and many Leaf ACs.
>>> 
>>> I suggest that "many" is not a necessary part of the definition
>>> although it
>may be
>>> probable in deployments. For the definition I think you need:
>>> 
>>>    An E-Tree service has one or more Root ACs and at least one Leaf AC.
>>
>> [Lucy] Since one key of E-tree service is prohibiting the
>> communication
>between
>> leaf ACs. Therefore, one leaf AC case does not make sense. How about:
>> An E- Tree service has one or more Root ACs and at least two Leaf ACs.
>
>So, if I buy an E-tree service from my service provider to support video
>distribution, and I have two leaf nodes, and one leaf node goes away, you
>are saying that the service I have bought suddenly becomes an E-LAN
>service?
>[Lucy] In an E-LAN service, all ACs have root role. If an AC has leaf
>role, the service is not an E-LAN service. I see this example as an
>E-Tree service.
>
>But, in principle that text is fine by me.
>[Lucy] Thanks. I'll use that text.
>
>Lucy