Dear co-authors, Your help with the following two issues in rfc9251 will be most appreciated:
Both issues refer to section 6.1 'Local IGMP/MLD membership Report Synchronization': Firstly, I would like to propose a fix in a sub-section that describe the PE actions upon reception of a withdrawal of an IGMP Membership Report Synch route from another PE. This sub-section has the following sentence: " If the DF no longer has the IGMP Membership Request (x,G) state for that BD on any ES for which it is the DF, it MUST withdraw its SMET route for that (x,G) group in that BD." This sentence seems to ignore the possibility that the related PE may have also received an IGMP Report (x,G) message from an AC or PW VES that is connected to a single homed CE (for which case DF is not relevant), in which case this PE will still have an IGMP Membership Request (x,G) state, and therefore will still have to advertise the SMET Route for the related (x,G). IMHO, this sentence shall be fixed to explicitly explain that the SMET Route shall be withdrawn ONLY if IGMP report (x,G) was NOT received from any MH or SH CE. The second issue refers to the advertisement of SMET (x,G) route ONLY by the MH-ES DF upon the creation of IGMP Membership Request (x,G) state; In this RFC only the DF of the related multihomed ES advertises the (x,G) SMET Route. Which means that only the DF will receive the related (x,G) traffic (Assuming no other MH-ES mate PE has another AC/PW from which related IGMP Report (x,G) was received). However, in case of failure of the related MH-ES AC on the DF or in case of failure of the PE that is elected as DF, we will have packet loss until he following procedures are completed: 1. DF election 2. The advertisement of SMET (x,G) Route by the newly elected DF 3. then wait for the remote PE, behind which the source resides, to process the above routes and send the traffic to the newly elected DF. This might cause high traffic loss for the related (x,G) traffic. I wander, can we assume that the related Multihomed Ethernet Segment BDF mate PE also advertise a related SMET route (x,G) and receive the related (x,G) traffic but forward it to the related AC when it becomes DF? This might shorten the packet loss in case of DF failure quite significantly. Looking forward to your response, Nitsan Dolev Ribbon Comunication Disclaimer This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of Ribbon Communications Inc. and its Affiliates that is confidential and/or proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and then delete all copies, including any attachments.
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- bess@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to bess-le...@ietf.org
