[mpls] 答复: MPLS-RT review of draft-jin-jounay-mpls-mldp-hsmp

[Mach Chen <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I have reviewed the draft and here are my comments:


1.       First, I am not fully convinced by the use cases

a)       For the PTP case, since the requirements is to have co-routed bidirectional path, and LDP-based solution may not be the best choose, it cannot guarantee that the upstream and downstream LSP are fully co-routed, because it’s path follow IP routing, two directions may choose different interfaces(links) or tunnels as the nexthop. RSVP-TE-based solution maybe a better choice. In addition, if the purpose is to save the bandwidth (compare to use unicast bidirectional LSP), seems the benefit is limited.

b)       For VPLS and E-VPN scenarios, seems MP2MP LSP  is a better choice.

2.       The draft introduces a new terminology: HSMP LSP, if my understanding is correct, the HSMP LSP is actually a co-routed bidirectional P2MP LSP,  and  IMHO, the name of co-routed bidirectional P2MP LSP is more common and easy to understand.

3.       The solution and extensions defined in the draft works, one comments on Section 4.2

“Both elements will be used as FEC Elements in the FEC TLV.” More accurate should be “If a FEC TLV contains an HSMP FEC Element, the HSMP FEC Element MUST be the only FEC Element in the FEC TLV.

4.       In summary, the solution and extensions are OK, but the use cases need more work and clarification.


Best regards,
Mach

发件人: Ross Callon [mailto:[e-mail]]
发送时间: 2012年7月13日 0:50
收件人: [e-mail]; Raveendra Torvi; Mach Chen
抄送: Loa Andersson; George Swallow (swallow); Martin Vigoureux; Ross Callon; [e-mail]; Fred Jounay; [e-mail]; Nic Leymann
主题: MPLS-RT review of draft-jin-jounay-mpls-mldp-hsmp

Thomas, Ravi, Mach;

You have been selected as an MPLS Review team reviewers for
draft-jin-jounay-mpls-mldp-hsmp

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 July 27, 2012 (ie, prior to the IETF
meeting in Vancouver)?

Thanks, Ross
(as MPLS WG chair)