Re: [lisp] Comparing LISP multicast with draft-ghanwani-nvo3-app-mcast-framework-01.txt

[Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>]

> For the "source replication" description of our draft (section3.2), I can add the following to make it consistent with the LISP approach. Is it OK?
> "The method of receiver-sites registration for a particular multicast-group described in [LISP-Signal-Free] can be used for NVO3. The registrations from different receiver-sites can be merged at the Multicast Service Node (MSN of Section 3.3) or the NVA to assemble a multicast-replication-list inclusive of all remote NVEs to which receivers for a particular multicast-group are attached. The replication-list for each specific multicast entry is maintained either by MSN or NVA. 
> The receiver-sites registration is achieved by egress NVEs performing the IGMP/MLD snooping to maintain which attached Tenant Systems have subscribed to a given IP multicast stream. When the members of a multicast group are outside the NVO3 domain, it is necessary for NVO3 domain gateways to keep track of the remote members of each multicast group.”  
>  
> Please let me know if this description is good enough?

The description is fine but the term "multicast-group" is probably too specific and does not include IGMPv3 and MLDv2 (S,G) specific entries. I would change "multicast-group" to "joined-multicast-entry" and then define what a "joined-multicast-entry" can be.

Dino