EVPN Optimized Inter-Subnet Multicast (OISM) Forwarding
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-11

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, andrew-ietf@liquid.tech, bess-chairs@ietf.org, bess@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast@ietf.org, mankamis@cisco.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Protocol Action: 'EVPN Optimized Inter-Subnet Multicast (OISM) Forwarding' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-11.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'EVPN Optimized Inter-Subnet Multicast (OISM) Forwarding'
  (draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast-11.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the BGP Enabled ServiceS Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Jim Guichard, Andrew Alston and John Scudder.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-evpn-irb-mcast/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

   Ethernet VPN (EVPN) provides a service that allows a single Local
   Area Network (LAN), comprising a single IP subnet, to be divided into
   multiple "segments".  Each segment may be located at a different
   site, and the segments are interconnected by an IP or MPLS backbone.
   Intra-subnet traffic (either unicast or multicast) always appears to
   the end users to be bridged, even when it is actually carried over
   the IP or MPLS backbone.  When a single "tenant" owns multiple such
   LANs, EVPN also allows IP unicast traffic to be routed between those
   LANs.  This document specifies new procedures that allow inter-subnet
   IP multicast traffic to be routed among the LANs of a given tenant,
   while still making intra-subnet IP multicast traffic appear to be
   bridged.  These procedures can provide optimal routing of the inter-
   subnet multicast traffic, and do not require any such traffic to
   egress a given router and then ingress that same router.  These
   procedures also accommodate IP multicast traffic that originates or
   is destined external to the EVPN domain.

Working Group Summary

   Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
   For example, was there controversy about particular points 
   or were there decisions where the consensus was
   particularly rough? 

There was solid consensus on this document.  The number of authors on the document results from substantive textual contributions by all involved and in this case I believe it to be justified.

Document Quality

   Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a 
   significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
   implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
   merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
   e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
   conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
   there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
   what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
   Review, on what date was the request posted?

Personnel

   The Document Shepherd for this document is Mankamana Prasad Mishra. The
   Responsible Area Director is Andrew Alston.

RFC Editor Note