Hi Greg, Just to be clear, this is purely a suggestion on my part that might improve the document. It's not a DISCUSS, so you're not obligated to indulge my suggestions unless you think they're a worthwhile improvement.
Yes, those all look good to me. For the 4.2 changes, I might suggest a slightly different presentation: NEW: When a PE supporting this specification receives a C-multicast route for a particular (C-S, C-G) for which all of the following are true: o the RT carried in the route results in importing the route into a particular VRF on the PE; o the route carries the Standby PE BGP Community; and o the PE determines (via a method of failure detection that is outside the scope of this document) that C-S is not reachable through some other PE (more details are in Section 4.3), then the PE MAY install VRF PIM state corresponding to this Standby BGP C-multicast route (the result will be that a PIM Join message will be sent to the CE towards C-S, and that the PE will receive (C-S, C-G) traffic), and the PE MAY forward (C-S, C-G) traffic received by the PE to other PEs through a P-tunnel rooted at the PE. -MSK
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
