Re: WG LAST CALL on draft-ietf-ppvpn-rfc2547bis-03.txt

Mark> Perhaps a  more specific name  should be applied.  "BGP-MPLS  L3 VPNs"
Mark> perhaps? 

I'll probably go  with "BGP/MPLS IP VPNs", to head  off questions like "does
it work with IPX and Appletalk". 

Mark> Does the scheme work if routes  to the same subnet are advertised from
Mark> VRFs in 2 PEs, using different RDs? 

Yes.  Obviously  though only one  of those routes  will be installed  in the
VRF. 

Mark> I don't think the current memo  says for this case how the PE learning
Mark> these routes should decide which to install. 

Correct, it does not.  This question comes up regularly.  One could specify,
for example,  that the one  (or more, if  load balancing is  being provided)
installed should be the one that BGP would have chosen if the two routes had
had the same RD.  Or one could  specify that the one installed should be the
one  whose  BGP  next  hop  is   the  closest.   There  may  also  be  other
possibilities.  However,  leaving it as an implementation  decision does not
seem to cause any loops or interoperability problems, so it is probably best
to leave it unspecified. 

Mark> Isn't an LSR allowed to support only DU?  And its neighbor only DOD? 

Good catch, so  per section 3.5.3 of RFC 3036 we  should really require that
DU be supported on non-LC-ATM interfaces, and DoD on LC-ATM interfaces.