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

[Lucy yong <[e-mail]>]

Hi All,

I reviewed draft-kompella-mpls-larp as the member of MPLS Review Team and have the following comments:

is the document coherent?

Yes. It specifies LARP protocol to advertise label binding for IP host address, which extends MPLS to Hosts. Definitely MPLS related.

is it useful (i.e., is it likely to be actually useful in operational networks)?

Technically speaking, this protocol can be implemented. I am not a (DC) operator so not sure if the operator wants to deploy this protocol in DC or between access nodes and first hop MPLS-enabled device. The protocol may help automation at mpls edge. One question: beside label binding to host address, what other MPLS benefits will hosts gain compared to current architecture? For example, if MPLS OAM features can be extended to hosts, i.e. end-to-end?

is the document technically sound? 
Yes, LARP is used between host and MPLS network to convey label binding to IP host address. The draft provides a solution in control plane and data plane to achieve this purpose.

is the document ready to be considered for WG adoption?
Not yet.  IMO: LARP protocol should work in a practical environment where hosts and an MPLS device are connected via an intermediate bridge (IEEE.1Q). Current draft only considers the case that host directly connects to MPLS device. In addition, it is necessary to address some items listed in section 4 ahead, which helps validate the feasibility in operational environment. For examples, 1) client and service in sync; 4) if there are many servers, which one to pick? 

Regards,
Lucy
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loa Andersson [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 12:18 PM
> To: Lucy yong; Kamran Raza (skraza); Sriganesh Kini; Aissaoui, 
> Mustapha (Mustapha); [e-mail]; 
> [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]
> Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
> Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: [phone]