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

[Eric C Rosen <[e-mail]>]

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.