Subject: Re: [MBONED] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-10.txt> (Use of Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points) to Best Current Practice

From: "TARAPORE, PERCY S" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 13:05:18 +0000

Hi Luis,

Thanks for your comment on this BCP. We discussed the possibility of adding a new Use Case for a transit provider AD-3. We felt that adding this Use Case would require significant changes in the Section 4 Functional Guidelines. For that purpose, we have added a short paragraph towards the end of Section 1 "Introduction" stating that the possibility of a transit situation exists and that additional complexities would arise. We indicate therefore that this Use Case is out of scope and for further study. The new version of the draft stating this has been uploaded.

Thanks so much for your useful comment.

Best wishes,

Percy

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 10:05 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [MBONED] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-10.txt> (Use of Multicast Across Inter-Domain Peering Points) to Best Current Practice

Dear all,

I have a specific comment regarding to this document. It states (third bullet in page 5) that the multicast traffic to be inter-exchanged via the peering point is the one generated locally, in this case by AD-1 ("a service provider controls one or more application sources in AD-1 ..."). 
So it does not consider the situation where one carrier may act as
(multicast) transit provider. In other words, a scenario where AD-3 could obtain via AD-2 the multicast traffic generated by AD-1.

Maybe I’m wrong, but in my understanding the scenarios and methods described in the draft could permit such transit scenario, but no statement is done to clarify if it is feasible or not. It can be interesting to clarify this point in the final version of the document.

Thanks

Luis M. Contreras

El 2017-08-09 21:17, The IESG escribió:
> The IESG has received a request from the MBONE Deployment WG (mboned) 
> to consider the following document: - 'Use of Multicast Across 
> Inter-Domain Peering Points'
>   <draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-10.txt> as Best Current 
> Practice
> 
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits 
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the 
> [email-masked] mailing lists by 2017-08-23. Exceptionally, comments may 
> be sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the 
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> 
> Abstract
> 
> 
>    This document examines the use of Source Specific Multicast (SSM)
>    across inter-domain peering points for a specified set of deployment
>    scenarios. The objective is to describe the setup process for
>    multicast-based delivery across administrative domains for these
>    scenarios and document supporting functionality to enable this
>    process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The file can be obtained via
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.
> org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dmboned-2Dinterdomain-2Dpeering-2Dbcp_&d=DwIDaQ&
> c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=4Z9x1ZAReZp_mJahI6h9bQ&m=0GmHrxgo89BvbdLbU_
> M9ONTyGOHaGROyMl82RNSS6dI&s=4bMf0eiQHVXyYnyyJ6jqwPGy1JHu8eMEoqDvkrES1m
> I&e=
> 
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.
> org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dmboned-2Dinterdomain-2Dpeering-2Dbcp_ballot_&d=
> DwIDaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=4Z9x1ZAReZp_mJahI6h9bQ&m=0GmHrxgo89B
> vbdLbU_M9ONTyGOHaGROyMl82RNSS6dI&s=QUTWvtQxm9WygrtU9sRYkt0a5EJpqS4s7bZ
> uKvlG7_k&e=
> 
> 
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
> 
> 
> The document contains these normative downward references.
> See RFC 3967 for additional information:
>     rfc2784: Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) (Proposed Standard - 
> Legacy stream)
>     rfc3810: Multicast Listener Discovery Version 2 (MLDv2) for IPv6 
> (Proposed Standard - IETF stream)
>     rfc7450: Automatic Multicast Tunneling (Proposed Standard - IETF
> stream)
>     rfc4609: Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) 
> Multicast Routing Security Issues and Enhancements (Informational - 
> IETF stream)
>     rfc4271: A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4) (Draft Standard - 
> IETF
> stream)
>     rfc4604: Using Internet Group Management Protocol Version 3
> (IGMPv3) and Multicast Listener Discovery Protocol Version 2 (MLDv2) 
> for Source-Specific Multicast (Proposed Standard - IETF stream)
>     rfc3376: Internet Group Management Protocol, Version 3 (Proposed 
> Standard - IETF stream)
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MBONED mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail
> man_listinfo_mboned&d=DwIDaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=4Z9x1ZAReZp_mJ
> ahI6h9bQ&m=0GmHrxgo89BvbdLbU_M9ONTyGOHaGROyMl82RNSS6dI&s=naXd0yDuaAe1r
> 3nPvfKQ4NVzE0_lfsdW4jhNRNUHUTo&e=

--
___________________________________________

Luis M. Contreras
[email-masked]
[email-masked]