[mpls] comments on draft-ietf-mpls-number-0-bw-te-lsps-06

hi

a couple of comments

o) section 2.

   "The traffic routed onto such unconstrained TE LSP
   simply follows the IGP shortest path (since the TE LSP computed by
   the path computation algorithm (e.g.  CSPF) will be no different than
   the IGP shortest path should the TE metric be equal to the IGP
   metric) but is protected with MPLS TE Fast Reroute."

-> last part is unclear - shouldn't it state "but if LSP are locally
protected then RFC 4090 still applies" ? 

i found the paragraph difficult to parse in the context of the document
because it does not state or clarify what is the real implication in
case of path-provisioned only LSP on FRR itself.

o) section 2.

"This document specifies a new Link-type Traffic
   Engineering sub-TLV used to indicate the number of unconstrained TE
   LSPs signalled across a link."
[..]
"TE LSPs signalled with zero bandwidth that are configured and
   provisioned through a management system are not included in the count
   that is reported."

-> a possible choice, but what about provisioned LSP but management
system removed LSP do you decrease the counter or not ? or vice-versa ?

o) section 2.

"TE LSPs signalled with zero bandwidth that are configured and
   provisioned through a management system are not included in the count
   that is reported."

does the sentence means: by any other mechanism than RFC 3209 ? if yes
pls clarify.

o) section 4.

the issue is not to detail mechanisms but overflooding and overloads
hence a text along the following line should be included borrowed from
the RFC 3630

"Origination of TE LSA including this new sub-TLV is recommended to be
rate-limited to at most one every MinLSInterval [RFC 2328]. Upon receipt
of such TE LSA the router should update its TEDB. No Shortest Path First
(SPF) or other route calculations are necessary."

o) the document should also detail implication of planned restart and
graceful restart 

in part. how the value of the number of path-only provisioned LSP is
recovered after such event ?

thanks,
-d.

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls