Hi Tarek, Thanks for the replies and the new revision, and sorry for the late response. Your recent revision addresses most of my comments. Please find one further comment below: On 29.12.19 20:38, Tarek Saad wrote: > […] > 3.3 > "the PLR MUST ensure bypass tunnel assignment can satisfy the protected LSP MTU > requirements post FRR" - Is there an existing mechanism to do this? > [TS]: Section 2.6 in RFC3209 describes a mechanism to determine whether a node should fragment or drop a packet that exceeds the Path MTU as discovered using RSVP signaling on primary LSP path. A PLR can leverage the RSVP discovered Path MTU on the backup and primary LSP path to ensure MTU is not exceeded after rerouting traffic on to the bypass tunnel. I think it'd be helpful to add a reference to that RFC and section here. Best, Theresa -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
