Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-05
review-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-05-opsdir-lc-wu-2021-04-23-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2021-04-27
Requested 2021-04-13
Authors Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang , Lenny Giuliano
Draft last updated 2021-04-23
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -00 by He Jia (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -05 by He Jia (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Qin Wu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Qin Wu
State Completed
Review review-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-05-opsdir-lc-wu-2021-04-23
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/viwSgQmCJopqgeouMUJuC-Hs2a4
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 08)
Result Ready
Completed 2021-04-23
review-ietf-bess-mvpn-msdp-sa-interoperation-05-opsdir-lc-wu-2021-04-23-00
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 operational aspects of
the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

This document describes how to convey the RP address information into the MVPN
Source Active route using an Extended Community so this information can be
shared with an existing MSDP infrastructure. It provides an update to RFC6514.

Major issues:
None

Minor issues:
I am wondering how MVPN and MSDP SA Interoperation is back compatible with
existing source  discovery information dissemination methods? Is there any
downside to make MVPN SA and MSDP SA work together.

Section 1:
Suggest to add term for GTM, RPT, C-Multicast

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”?

Section 3
What do you mean other MSDP speaker? Do we assume there is one or only one MSDP
speaker in the MSDP mesh group? How MSDP speaker is different from MSDP peer?
Do you mean there is no session to be established between MSDP peer?

Section 3, last paragraph:
When we say ” In that case, if the selected best MVPN SA route does not have
the "MVPN SA RP-address EC" but another route for the same (C-S, C-G) does,
then the best route with the EC SHOULD be chosen.”, which best route is
selected? Selected best MVPN SA route without EC or normal route with the EC?
It looks you assume the normal route with the EC is the best selected route as
well in this context?

Section 3
Can you provide an example of fine grained policy control? Is this related to
local policy? “accepted MSDP SA message when receiving PE’s RP for the C-G is
MSDP peer to which the generated MSDP message is advertised”