Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-kompella-mpls-larp

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Lucy, Kamran, Sri and Mustapha

Can each of you confirm to me that your MPLS-RT review comments has been
satisfactorily addressed.

I will start the working group adoption poll as soon as I have 
your¨resonses,

/Loa

On 2015-09-08 21:25, Kireeti Kompella wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Thanks all again for your comments.
>
> I've just posted a new version incorporating all your feedback.  There
> is new text to clarify some points, and the text on unsolicited ARP and
> Async operation have been merged.  The one thing left to do is to write
> the MPLS Fabric document -- work has started here.
>
> Kireeti.
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Sriganesh Kini
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Hello,
>
>     This is the MPLS-RT review of draft-kompella-mpls-larp -
>
>     The document is coherent.
>
>     Regarding whether it is useful (i.e., is it likely to be actually
>     useful in operational networks), the yet to do be defined reference
>     [TODO-MPLS-FABRIC] would be needed before commenting on it. Also if
>     any host NIC vendors can chime in or any evidence of host operating
>     systems that plan to support this is present, it will help to answer
>     this question. I don't see any technical reason why MPLS shouldn't
>     be useful in DC networks.
>
>     The document is technically sound for most parts, but as sec 4
>     points out there are a number of issues still left. I would add a
>     couple issues -
>              1.      The restarts should address control-plane restart
>     as well. Though there is no session between server and client, the
>     action (if any) to be performed when control-plane restarts should
>     be specified.

>              2.      If a LSR (L-ARP server) goes down, then there
>     should be a proposed resiliency mechanism (e.g. using BFD).

>
>     Other comments:
>              1.      It would be very useful to list the use-cases where
>     a host wants to participate in the fabric through a simpler
>     mechanism than RSVP-TE UNI. Additionally, even though label
>     distribution itself may become simpler using ARP, doesn't the host
>     have to do other MPLS OAM functionality? Some discussion of this
>     topic is needed.

>              2.      Section 3.4 "... presence of a complex
>     topology...". Which topology is this referring to ? Is it the
>     underlying ethernet network topology ? Pls state it explicitly and
>     also why it would cause a problem to LARP.

>
>     Nits:
>              1.      Section 1, page 1 s/Centre/Center

>              2.      The node 'T' should be shown in the MPLS Fabric of
>     Fig 1.

>              3.      Missing reference [TODO-MPLS-FABRIC]

>              4.      Sec 3.4 "Seamless MPLS" reference is missing.

>
>     Since [TODO-MPLS-FABRIC] seems to the primary driver for this
>     document, it would be better to consider this for a WG document
>     after that document is published.
>
>     - Sri
>     ________________________________________
>     From: Loa Andersson [[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>]
>     Sent: Tuesday, 30 June 2015 9:18 AM
>     To: Lucy yong; Kamran Raza (skraza); Sriganesh Kini; Aissaoui,
>     Mustapha (Mustapha); [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>;
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     Subject: MPLS-RT review of draft-kompella-mpls-larp
>
>     Lucy, Kamran, Sri and Mustapha;
>
>     You have be selected as MPLS-RT reviewers for draft-kompella-mpls-larp.
>
>     Note to authors: You have been CC'd on this email so that you can know
>     that this review is going on. However, please do not review your own
>     document.
>
>     Reviews should comment on whether the document is coherent, is it
>     useful (ie, is it likely to be actually useful in operational networks),
>     and is the document technically sound?
>
>     We are interested in knowing whether the document is ready to be
>     considered for WG adoption (ie, it doesn't have to be perfect at this
>     point, but should be a good start).
>
>     Reviews should be sent to the document authors, WG co-chairs and WG
>     secretary, and CC'd to the MPLS WG email list. If necessary, comments
>     may be sent privately to only the WG chairs.
>
>     If you have technical comments you should try to be explicit about what
>     needs to be resolved before adopting it as a working group document, and
>     what can wait until the document is a working group document and the
>     working group has the revision control.
>
>     Are you able to review this draft by 14, 2015? Please respond in a
>     timely fashion.
>
>     Thanks, Loa
>     (as MPLS WG chair)
>     --
>
>
>     Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     Senior MPLS Expert [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]
>     <tel:%2B46%20739%2081%2021%2064>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Kireeti