Re: draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations-05

[Yakov Rekhter <yakov at juniper.net>]

Thomas,
 
> Hello working group,
> 
> Feedback is highly welcome on the last revision of 
> draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations, especially on the non editorial 
> changes such as the now fully revised Appendix A that compares the 
> behavior of the different C-multicast routing approaches with reference 
> to mVPN SSM/ASM routing scalability.
> 
> The changes made in this revision and the previous one are described in 
> the slides presented this afternoon ( 
> http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/76/slides/l3vpn-0.pdf ).
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> -Thomas

I reviewed the latest (05) revision of
draft-ietf-l3vpn-mvpn-considerations, paying special attention to
the non editorial changes in Appendix A. The latest text in Appendix A
provides a detailed and accurate analysis of using both PIM and
BGP for exchanging C-multicast routes. It covers both PIM-SM in
SSM mode and PIM-SM in ASM mode scenarios. Moreover, as part of
the analysis of using BGP for exchanging C-multicast routes, the
latest text correctly reflects interaction between Route Target
Constrains and the propagation of C-multicast routes.

It is time to move this draft to the IESG.

Yakov.