Hi John,
The duplication itself is a problem - a receiver should not receive duplicates.
However, a source should not send the same packet to two BDs. That's what the
paragraph is supposing:
... (This does assume that source S does not
send the same (S,G) datagram on two different BDs ...)
Thanks.
Jeffrey
Juniper Business Use Only
-----Original Message-----
From: John Scudder <j...@juniper.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2024 11:07 AM
To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzh...@juniper.net>
Cc: The IESG <i...@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mc...@ietf.org;
bess-cha...@ietf.org; bess@ietf.org; manka...@cisco.com
Subject: Re: John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-11:
(with COMMENT)
On Mar 7, 2024, at 9:47 AM, Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang <zzh...@juniper.net> wrote:
>
> zzh> If the source host is also connected to another BD3 that is attached to
> PE2 and it is sending to both BD2 and BD3, then both copies will be switched
> to PE1 via the SBD
So the only consequence is suboptimality because of duplicated packets? That
seems fine. Thanks.
—John
_______________________________________________
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
