Lars, We have published revision 18 to address your request. Please review, -Rishabh
On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 7:45 AM Rishabh Parekh <risha...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes. I can add some text clarifying this. > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 12:23 AM Lars Eggert <l...@eggert.org> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Aug 23, 2023, at 20:42, Rishabh Parekh <risha...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > My point is this draft specifies behavior of a single replication >> segment which can be deployed for ingress replication like service (similar >> to End.DT2M for Layer 2 BUM) without needing a control plane - either by >> local provisioning on root and leaf nodes or by using overlay automatic >> discovery mechanisms like BGP MVPN procedures. Loops don't arise in this >> case unless underlying unicast point-to-point paths between a Root and Leaf >> nodes have loops, but this is out of scope of this document. >> > >> > Loops can only arise when replication segments are stitched together to >> form a P2MP tree. Typically, this requires a control plane; >> draft-ietf-pim-sr-policy is specification of one such control plane (using >> PCE as centralized P2MP compute). I think it is appropriate to document >> loop prevention or mitigation there. But it is not necessary to use a >> control plane to deploy a single replication segment. Hence I don't think >> this document needs to have a normative reference to the PIM WG draft. >> >> thanks for the background! I did not fully understand that distinction >> when reading the document - would you be OK with adding something like the >> above to the document? >> >> Thanks, >> Lars >> >>
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
