[Tsvwg] Comments on draft-davie-tsvwg-rsvp-l3vpn-02

"Yegenoglu, Ferit" <ferit.yegenoglu@lmco.com> Fri, 07 March 2008 16:04 UTC

Return-Path: <tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-tsvwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tsvwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E140C28C5E2; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 08:04:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.238
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.238 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=1, RCVD_BAD_ID=2.837]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 66yH8-HENlnN; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 08:04:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4D3628C75B; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 08:04:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B66028C614; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 08:04:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WkB-KvVGHbhP; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 08:04:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw2a.lmco.com (mailgw2a.lmco.com [192.91.147.7]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFD2E3A6A17; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 08:03:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from emss01g01.ems.lmco.com (relay1.ems.lmco.com [137.249.139.141])by mailgw2a.lmco.com (LM-6) with ESMTP id m27G3R9m007519; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 11:03:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from CONVERSION2-DAEMON.lmco.com by lmco.com (PMDF V6.3-x14 #31428) id <0JXD00501B9RO5@lmco.com>; Fri, 07 Mar 2008 08:03:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EMSS09I00.us.lmco.com ([158.183.26.31]) by lmco.com (PMDF V6.3-x14 #31428) with ESMTP id <0JXD00DBDB9MPV@lmco.com>; Fri, 07 Mar 2008 08:03:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from emss09m07.us.lmco.com ([158.183.26.40]) by EMSS09I00.us.lmco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Fri, 07 Mar 2008 11:03:22 -0500
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 11:03:18 -0500
From: "Yegenoglu, Ferit" <ferit.yegenoglu@lmco.com>
To: l3vpn@ietf.org, tsvwg@ietf.org
Message-id: <79E4059BC98EAF48BBE42FCF392DAA520B10C24C@emss09m07.us.lmco.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_CFt2mUPv4xRg6zYGoXFPxA)"
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-davie-tsvwg-rsvp-l3vpn-02
Thread-Index: AciAbME21/Ikm7jcSvuBzX/NXv4xmw==
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Mar 2008 16:03:22.0186 (UTC) FILETIME=[C483E2A0:01C8806C]
Subject: [Tsvwg] Comments on draft-davie-tsvwg-rsvp-l3vpn-02
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Bruce, Francois, and Ashok,

 

I have a few comments on your draft:

 

1)      Section 3.2, "The router...............determines the local VRF
context by finding a matching VPN-IPv4 prefix with the specified RD that
has been advertised by this router into BGP" 

- Can you clarify how the local VRF context is determined? Can the VRF
context be determined directly from the RD or does the router search
through advertised routes as described in the above sentence? 

2)      Section 3.3, "The Resv message is sent to the IP address
contained within the RSVP_HOP object in the Path message." 

- I believe you mean the RSVP_HOP object in the Path state (not
message). Note that you can actually delete this sentence (it is a
repeat).

3)      Section 5.2.2, paragraph starting with "When the upstream RSVP
hop sends a Path message....." 

a.       It is worth clarifying that just as there are upstream and
downstream RSVP hops, there are upstream and downstream ASBRs in the
description of how the Path messages are processed. 

b.       The first Path message is processed by the ASBRs thus creating
Path state; Resv messages and all subsequent Path messages are only
processed by the upstream and downstream RSVP hops, causing eventually
the ASBR Path state to expire. It may help to clearly state this in the
paragraph. Also, are there any issues with this, i.e. the processing of
the first Path message of all end-to-end reservations at the ASBRs?

 

Regards,

Ferit