RE: WG LC: draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-bgp

["NAPIERALA, MARIA H, ATTLABS" <[e-mail]>]

Comments on section 14:

- section 14.1 states "When a PE that previously advertised a Source
Active A-D route for a given (multicast) source learns that the source
is no longer active (the PE learns this by using the same mechanism by
which the PE learned that the source was active), the PE SHOULD withdraw
the previously advertised Source Active route."

How exactly a PE which is a C-RP, for example, decides that that a
source is not longer active, so that it can withdraw the previously
advertised Source Active route?  I think this should be specified since
PE being a C-RP differs from plain IP multicast context.

-  section 14.2 states "A PE MUST withdraw a Source Tree Join
C-multicast route for (C-S, C-G) if, as a result of having received PIM
messages from one of its CEs, the PE creates a Prune <C-S, C-G, RPT-bit>
upstream state in one of its MVPN-TIBs, but has no <C-S, C-G> Joined
state in that MVPN-TIB, and had previously advertised the said route."

The PE should also prune itself or be pruned from the tunnel it joined
to receive <C-S, C-G> traffic (if this tunnel is not bound to any other
traffic). This is also applicable to section 13.

- I think that a description should be added to section 14 on how a PE
handles <C-*, C-G> Prune messages received from locally attached CEs.

Maria

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of Danny McPherson
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 8:52 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: WG LC: draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-bgp
> 
> 
> Please consider today the start of a 2-week last call
> for draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-bgp, available here:
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l3vpn-2547bis-mcast-bgp-05
> 
> Input on this draft's suitability for publication as an
> Internet Standards Track document is solicited, feedback
> ends December 9, 2008.
> 
> Thanks in advance for your feedback!
> 
> Danny & Marshall