Forwarding to IETF wide list and authors/editors Bert Wijnen
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Bert Wijnen - IETF [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: donderdag 24 april 2008 13:55 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: OPS-DIR review for: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-interarea-03.txt I reveied this document for the OPS Directorate In general, I think the document is ready for publication. In sect 7.1 I read: For the successful establishment of end-to-end MPLS LSPs whose FEC are aggregated in the RIB, this specification must be implemented on all LSRs in all areas where IP aggregation is used. If an LSR on the path does not support this procedure, then the LSP initiated on the egress LSR stops at this non compliant LSR. There are no other adverse effects. I think/hope (but it would be good to see this confirmed) that this does not mean that all LSRs in the set of IGPs that are involved need to be upgraded with the new protocol at exactly the same time. The way I understand it, one can upgrade the LSRs at different times, but should only activate this new mechnaism once all LSRs have ineeded been upgraded with the new capability. Nits: - There are several/many acronyms in this document that never get expanded. It is good pratice to always expand an acronym when it is used for the first time. - Abstract To facilitate the establishment of Label Switched Paths (LSP) that would span multiple IGP areas in a given Autonomous System (AS), this document proposes a new optional label mapping procedure for the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP). s/proposes/describes/ (at least once this comes out as RFC, right?) - need to add citation to RFC2119 in section 1. And add a normative reference for RFC2119. - 2nd para section 4: To set up the required MPLS LSPs between PEs in different IGP areas, services providers have currently three solutions: LDP with IGP route s/services/service/ I think. - consistency: I see Service providers service providers Service Providers I suggest to use consistent capitalization - 1st para sect 5: This document defines a new label mapping procedure for [LDP]. It is applicable to IPv4 and IPv6 prefix FEC elements (addresses families 1 and 2 as per [ASSIGNED_AF]). It MUST be possible to activate / ^M I believe it is "address families" (or maybe "addressing families") but not "addresses families". So I would: s/addresses/address/ - sect 5, I see longest match label mapping procedure longest match Label Mapping Procedure "Longest Match" label mapping procedure longest match procedure you might want to be a bit moire consistent - Section 5: - next-hop change when an existing prefix have new next hop following a routing change. s/have new/has a new/ ?? - When the next-hop of a RIB prefix change, the LSR must change change the first "change": s/change/changes/ or so I think. - 2nd para section 7.2 In case of failure of the egress LER node, given that the IGP aggregates IP route on ABRs, the routing convergence behavior is changed compared to [LDP]. As the IGP does not carry specifics prefixes outside of the egress area, the IGP will not propagate the s/specifics prefices/specific prefixes/ (or so I think) - Last para sect 7.2 For all others failures s/others/other/ Bert Wijnen -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Seely, Ted A [CTO] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: donderdag 17 april 2008 13:42 Aan: Bert Wijnen Onderwerp: OPS DIR Review Request Hello Bert, As a member of the Operations Directorate you are being asked to review the following IESG work item for it¹s operational impact. IETF Last Call: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-interarea-03.txt BTW - This is a very short draft. If possible please provide comments and review to the Ops-dir mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), preferably before next Wednesday if possible. Thank you Bert, Ted _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf