IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir

"Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net> Mon, 05 May 2014 16:23 UTC

Return-Path: <zzhang@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 982961A02E9 for <l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 May 2014 09:23:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BAoL72Mqs1sG for <l3vpn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 May 2014 09:23:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2lp0244.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.244]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C4D61A02CF for <l3vpn@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 May 2014 09:23:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BY2PR05MB079.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.38.16) by BY2PR05MB077.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.242.38.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.939.12; Mon, 5 May 2014 16:23:52 +0000
Received: from BY2PR05MB079.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.8.109]) by BY2PR05MB079.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.8.109]) with mapi id 15.00.0934.000; Mon, 5 May 2014 16:23:51 +0000
From: "Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang" <zzhang@juniper.net>
To: "erosen@cisco.com" <erosen@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir
Thread-Topic: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-bidir
Thread-Index: AQHPaHn+uln9/+fZiEuzIRriE4VH6JsyJwdg
Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 16:23:50 +0000
Message-ID: <a973a0830821456e9c348289e85a60d0@BY2PR05MB079.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: Your message of Mon, 28 Apr 2014 21:23:24 -0000. <7ec54baf59f741ab9f4b996370957898@BY2PR05MB079.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <24627.1399305077@erosen-lnx>
In-Reply-To: <24627.1399305077@erosen-lnx>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.13]
x-forefront-prvs: 0202D21D2F
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009001)(6009001)(428001)(51704005)(199002)(189002)(76482001)(87936001)(85852003)(83072002)(99396002)(81542001)(86362001)(2656002)(92566001)(33646001)(74316001)(101416001)(81342001)(77982001)(83322001)(99286001)(66066001)(76576001)(80022001)(46102001)(74502001)(74662001)(4396001)(21056001)(76176999)(79102001)(50986999)(20776003)(54356999)(31966008)(64706001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BY2PR05MB077; H:BY2PR05MB079.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=zzhang@juniper.net;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/l3vpn/JEvrI1IVfYP2WjJuoUZqHoLfv30
Cc: L3VPN <l3vpn@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: l3vpn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <l3vpn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/l3vpn>, <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/l3vpn/>
List-Post: <mailto:l3vpn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l3vpn>, <mailto:l3vpn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 16:23:59 -0000

Eric,

> How about if I remove these paragraphs from section 3.2.1 and 3.2.2
> respectively, and add a single paragraph at the front of section 3.2 that
> begins "When either the Flat or the Hierarchical Partitioned method is used
> ..."

Even with unpartitioned method?

> > For the following in 3.2.2.2:
> 
>    Note that the PE Distinguisher Label to be used is the one assigned
>    by the root of the P-tunnel to the address of PE2, not the one
>    assigned to the address of PE1.  Note also that the root of the
>    P-tunnel might be a PE other than PE1 or PE2.
> 
> > It is for bidirectional flows. For unidirectional flows, the label
> > assigned by the root for PE1 need to be used.
> 
> Two paragraphs before the paragraph you cite it says "the remainder of this
> section applies only to C\-BIDIR flows".  So your point is correct, but so
> is the draft ;-)

But shouldn't we also talk about unidirectional flows, since it is not covered in 6625? 3.2.2.3 does cover that.

Jeffrey

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email