Hi all, I think I already made similar comments when the first revision of the draft in the subject was presented, but since I see no changes in the last revision, please let me throw the comments to the list for discussion:
1) section 3 "Peering PEs MAY exchange only Ethernet-Segment route (Route Type-4)" Note that the AD per-ES route is REQUIRED in RFC7432. Please don't make this solution non-backwards compatible. Besides, mass withdrawal is important in this solution. 2) section 4 The document only talks about the default Alg and HRW Alg, but other Algs such as Preference make a lot of sense here too. Also, shouldn't you request a new capability in the DF Election EC capability registry? If so, IMO this could be done: - the ES routes are advertised with existing DF Algs, e.g., default, HRW, Pref - when the new capability "port-based" is signaled, the Alg should be modified to consider the port only and not the Ethernet Tags. - the "port-based" capability should be compatible with the 'DP' capability (for non-revertive) and you should make sure that the AC-DF bit is zero so that an AC going down does not influence the DF Election. 3) I assume the ES associated to the port is defined as single-active mode. Also, as in RFC7432, the ESI-label based split-horizon procedures should be used to avoid transient echo'ed packets. 4) section 5 - Port-active over Integrated Routing-Bridging Interface In this section you assume that the entire port belongs to a single BD, and there are no other ACs in the BD. Without this assumption you cannot drive the IRB state out of the ES state. Please let me know if I am missing something, otherwise please, make this explicit. Thank you. Jorge _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
