I support publication.
Please consider my comments as LC comments.
Regards,
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 1:02 PM
Subject: Comments to draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations
To: ietf@xxxxxxxx
Dear Authors,
please find my comments below:
Greg
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 1:02 PM
Subject: Comments to draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations
To: ietf@xxxxxxxx
Dear Authors,
please find my comments below:
- page 9, first para s/we loose out/we lose out/ - two times
- page 9, second to last para "Partition of the network into incompatible
and unconnected islands is neither desirable nor acceptable." While I agree
with the former, the latter is highly subjective and absolutely unenforceable.
As vendors we give operators loaded gun and a warning. What they do with them
might surprise and amaze us all.
- Section 4.4, first para: "There are three MPLS signaling control protocols
used for distributing labels to set up LSPs and PWs in MPLS networks: LDP,
RSVP-TE, and GMPLS." Perhaps GMPLS in this list should be replaced by
BGP/MPLS. RSVP-TE is equally used as signaling protocol to distribute MPLS and
GMPLS label information. There are three paradigms that operate with distinct
sets of constructs:
- LDP MPLS, a.k.a. IP/MPLS;
- TE-MPLS;
- TE-GMPLS.
- Section 4.4, second para. Would note that relationship between LDP and
TE-(G)MPLS networks might be not only as peering but as client-server, e.g.
LDP over RSVP-TE tunnels that could be MSPL-TP.
Greg
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf