RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-mcast-reqts-00.txt

[Bandi Sarveshwar-G19441 <sarvesh at motorola.com>]

Len and others,
In RFC2547bis, sending traffic of one VPN to another is achieved by policy configuration (RT and RD). The export and import policies pretty much decide which destinations in which VPNs are accessible to others. Multicast routing protocols like PIM (all variants) depend on the unicast routing database to propagate multicast control messages (Joins/Prunes). In that sense the policies for Multicast routing protocols operations should match with those unicast VPN policies (as in RFC2547bis).

would it be useful to add text in the requirements document in this regards? Or whatever I mentioned above is taken for granted?

Sarvesh


-----Original Message-----
From: l3vpn-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:l3vpn-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Len Nieman
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 7:33 PM
To: l3vpn at ietf.org
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-l3vpn-ppvpn-mcast-reqts-00.txt


In addition to Ron's comments, I would suggest changing the fourth paragraph under '5.1.7. Extranet':

"For instance, an enterprise using a multicast-enabled VPN should be able to receive multicast streams sent by a source in another VPN, and should also be able to be a source for a multicast stream towards another VPN."

To the stronger and more direct form:

'For instance, an enterprise using a multicast-enabled VPN should have the ability to receive a multicast stream from, or originate a multicast stream towards, another VPN.'

Len Nieman
(Bellsouth's my ISP,
not my employer)