> Hello Dino,
> Our sincere thanks to you for your detailed comments, Please find replies
> inline with GVP1>, I have removed the copy-pasted image from the draft text
> for comments that were accepted to keep the email short. I have attached the
> diff for your reference.
> Thanks
> Prasad
Thanks for the changes Prasad. I'll answer your question below and include text
from the diff file as further commentary. See inline.
> This is a good time to say alternatives exist like
> draft-ietf-lisp-group-mapping.
> GVP1> Accepted<PastedGraphic-11.png>
> So you could use the mapping system for the mapping or, as you state,
> PIM-over-PIM for the control plane. Don't you think you should expand more on
> the control plane (everywhere in the document) since it has huge implications
> on deployment?
> GVP1> Can you please let me know what control plane aspect should be
> described in more detail. Will be happy to help clarify.
The comment is if you can say if you are using PIM-over-PIM (ala 6831) or the
mapping system (ala 8378), you should state it for the use-cases you identified.
How about "Multi-Tenant Multi-Site Multicast Overlays"?
Dino
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
