Source C-Tree" in RFC 6514).
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Jeffrey
>>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: Gyan Mishra
>> Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 12:55 PM
>> To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
>> Cc: Lenny Giuliano ; Qin Wu ;
>> bess ; dra
hat this draft is about.
> |
> | What you describe below about how ASM is done is the other way
> (Section "13. Switching from a Shared C-Tree to a Source C-Tree" in RFC
> 6514).
> |
> | Thanks.
> |
> | Jeffrey
> |
> |
rom: Gyan Mishra
| Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 12:55 PM
| To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
| Cc: Lenny Giuliano ; Qin Wu ;
bess ; draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation.all
| ; last-call
; ops-dir
| Subject: Re: [bess] Opsdir last call review of
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-m
-sa-interoperation.all <
> draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation....@ietf.org>; last-call <
> last-c...@ietf.org>; ops-dir
> Subject: Re: [bess] Opsdir last call review of
> draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-05
>
> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
C-Tree" in RFC 6514).
Thanks.
Jeffrey
-Original Message-
From: Gyan Mishra
Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 12:55 PM
To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
Cc: Lenny Giuliano ; Qin Wu ; bess
; draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation.all
; last-call
; ops-dir
Subject: Re: [bess] Opsdir last ca
Hi Jeffrey
I read the draft and saw your comments that RFC 6514 mentions MSDP on the
PE.
In what use case would SP have to run Anycast RP / MSDP on the PE when that
ASM control plane function can all be done on the CE.
I guess there maybe customers looking for value added service to have the
SP
Hi Qin,
Thank you so much for the review and comments. I have posted -06 revision.
Jeffrey
From: Qin Wu
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 11:59 AM
To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang ; Lenny Giuliano
; ops-dir
Cc: bess ; draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation.all
; last-call
Subject: RE: Opsdir la
Jeffrey, thanks for your clarification. I am clear now. Would it be great to
add some clarifications text as an overview somewhere which will add a lot of
clarity. Thanks!
-Qin
发件人： Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhangmailto:zzh...@juniper.net>>
收件人： Qin Wumailto:bill...@huawei.com>>;Lenny
Giulianomailto:le
Hi Qin,
Before the mechanism in this document is introduced, a PE may need to have MSDP
sessions of both of the following:
1. With non-PE MSDP speakers (e.g. a C-RP)
2. With other PEs
#1 is clearly stated in RFC6514. #2 is mentioned in this document:
… PE2 would need to
have an MS
发件人: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang [mailto:zzh...@juniper.net]
发送时间: 2021年4月30日 22:05
收件人: Qin Wu ; Lenny Giuliano ;
ops-...@ietf.org
抄送: bess@ietf.org; draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation@ietf.org;
last-c...@ietf.org
主题: RE: Opsdir last call review of
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interope
Hi Qin,
I assume there is one question in your latest email, marked with [Qin3], about
the following paragraph:
The MVPN PEs that act as customer RPs or have one or more MSDP
sessions in a VPN (or the global table in case of GTM) are treated as
an MSDP mesh group for that VPN (or the gl
Section 3
When we say MVPN Pes that have one or more MSDP session in a VPN, does this
statement contradict with “VPN-specific MSDP sessions are not required among
the PEs”?
zzh> The MSDP session that the PEs have are with other non-PE MSDP speakers but
not among themselves, so it does not contr
Hi Qin,
Please see zzh3> below, and attached diff.
-Original Message-
From: Qin Wu
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 9:53 PM
To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang ; Lenny Giuliano
; ops-...@ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org; draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation@ietf.org;
last-c...@ietf.org
Subje
Thanks Jeffrey for clarification, I have better understanding on your document.
I suggest to add clarity to the text from two perspectives:
1. Highlight the assumption difference between mechanism proposed in RFC6514
and one proposed in this draft, e.g., in this draft, it doesn't require MSDP
ses
Hi Qin,
Please see zzh2> below for clarifications.
-Original Message-
From: Qin Wu
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 2:38 AM
To: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang ; Lenny Giuliano
; ops-...@ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org; draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation@ietf.org;
last-c...@ietf.org
Subje
Hi, Jeffrey:
-邮件原件-
发件人: Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang [mailto:zzh...@juniper.net]
发送时间: 2021年4月27日 4:35
收件人: Qin Wu ; Lenny Giuliano ;
ops-...@ietf.org
抄送: bess@ietf.org; draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation@ietf.org;
last-c...@ietf.org
主题: RE: Opsdir last call review of
draft-iet
Hi Qin,
Thank you for your review and comments. Let me share a diff to see if it
addresses the issues, before I post a revision.
Please see zzh> below.
-Original Message-
From: Qin Wu via Datatracker
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 11:20 AM
To: ops-...@ietf.org
Cc: bess@ietf.org; draft-ie
Reviewer: Qin Wu
Review result: Ready
Reviewer: Qin Wu
Review result: Ready with nits
I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These
comments were written with the intent of improving the opera
18 matches
Mail list logo
