Re: draft-morin-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations

[Thomas Morin <thomas.morin at orange-ftgroup.com>]

Yakov Rekhter :
>
> > NAPIERALA, MARIA H, ATTLABS wrote:
> > > The draft is a very good start but there are still some outstanding
> > > mandatory design aspects that need to be addressed: 
> > > - support of non-static RP solutions like BSR. There are current large
> > > MVPNs in SP network that use BSR
> > 
> > I agree (see reply to Eric) that our draft can mention BSR support.
> > There is only one currently proposed approach for BSR support, applying
> > to both the Full PIM peering approach and the BGP approach, so there
> > isn't that much to "compare", but the current requirement for MI-PMSI
> > for BSR support, even in the case where BGP is used for C-multicast
> > routing, has to be mentioned.
>  
> maria> yes, I agree. The need for MI-PMSI should be stated as the only
> maria> currently available solution for BSR. 
> 
> There is a way to support BSR without using MI-PMSI. As I mentioned
> in my reply to Eric's original e-mail, supporting BSR without MI-PMSI
> has been explained in the presentation at the L3VPN WG meeting. 

Yakov, mvpn-considerations cannot definitely not take into account stuff
that is not fully described yet.

Until a mechanism like the one is proposed, it is logical to state that
"current proposed approaches require an MI-PMSI for BSR support" and
update the section of mvpn-consideration talking about MI-PMSI in this
respect.  That can (and will) obviously be updated later if proposal to
do BSR without an MI-PMSI are made.

Thanks,

-Thomas