Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding

["Lizhong Jin" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Authors,
I am reviewing this draft as MPLS-RT review. Overall the document is technically sound, and I need some clarification from the authors before adoption. I also review draft-rekhter-mpls-pim-sm-over-mldp, and both the two drafts are technically feasible to set up a (*, G) tree. Whether adopting the two methods is left to the WG to decide.

1. section 5, 
       If PIM is not enabled for group G, and an IGMP/MLD group
       membership report for G has been received, the Egress LSR may
       determine the "proxy device" for G (following the procedures
       defined in [RFC4605]).  It can then set up an MP-LSP using the
       proxy device as the Ingress LSR.  
[Lizhong] I am confused here by the description in section 4.2. In section 4.2, it is said, the ingress LSR is manually configured, not discovered by procedures defined in RFC4605.

2. section 5,
       If PIM is enabled and the identified group is a PIM-SSM group,
       all multicast sources known for the group on the Ingress LSR are
       to be forwarded down the MP-LSP.
       [Lizhong] Is it assumed that the PIM-SSM MP-LSP is already there, and the new wildcard source based MP-LSP is only to aggregate the PIM-SSM MP-LSP? In that case, will the original PIM-SSM MP-LSP still be kept or be deleted by egress LSR? It is not clear here for PIM-SSM case.

3. section 5,
       If PIM is not enabled for identified group, the Ingress LSR acts
       as if it had received a (*,G) IGMP/MLD report from a downstream
       node, and the procedures as defined in [RFC4605] are followed.
       [Lizhong] For point 1&3, the dataplane behavior is missing. E.g, all multicast traffic with group address G SHOULD be forwarded to the MP-LSP.

4. Section 6. 
[Lizhong] it seems the section 6 procedure is specifically described for static multicast use case described in section 4.3, right? Otherwise, if the stream has PIM-SSM address, will the original PIM-SSM MP-LSP still be kept or be deleted by egress LSR?

Regards
Lizhong

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loa Andersson [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 11:42 AM
> To: Lizhong Jin; Dutta, Pranjal K (Pranjal); [e-mail];
> Curtis Villamizar; draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; VIGOUREUX, MARTIN
> (MARTIN)
> Subject: MPLS-RT review of draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-
> encoding
> 
> Lizhong, Pranjal, Vishwas and Curtis,
> 
> You have been selected as an MPLS Review team reviewers for
> draft-wijnands-mpls-mldp-in-band-wildcard-encoding-01.
> 
> 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
> secretary, and CC'd to the MPLS WG email list. If necessary, comments
> may be sent privately to only the WG chairs.
> 
> Are you able to review this draft by November 11, 2013?
> 
> 
> Thanks, Loa
> (as MPLS WG chair)
> --
> 
> 
> Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]