Subject: question regarding inter-domain-pd-path-comp

From: Faisal Aslam <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 14:32:11 +0100

Hi,
I have a question about that per-domain path computation and also want 
to indicate few minor mistakes in the draft. It important for me, that 
you answer my questions because I am middle of something.

*** Question

At page 7, case-1, when the next-hop is NOT present in TED and suppose 
that policy suggest to use stitching (or nesting), then why you cannot 
dynamically create H-LSP/S-LSP, after successfully finding domain 
exit-point using auto-discovery (with crankback), just like it is 
allowed to do this in case-2? Is it a writing mistake?

** Comments About draft

    * T0 is named for inter-area LSP at page 6 but by mistake it is
      referred as T1 at 4.1.1 (page 10) and also at 4.1.2 (page 11). At
      both places it should be change with T0 because inter-AS is
      referred as T1.
    * [RFC2702] not enlisted in the references at the end of draft but
      mention at page 5.
    * [LSP-STITCHING] reference says "work under progress" it should be
      "work in progress"
    * [LOOSE-REOPT] is written on page 13 but enlisted in references as
      (on page 17) as [LOOSE-PATH-REOPT]
    * [LSP-HIER] reference mention draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-hierachy-"08.txt"
      . I think you should eliminate 08.txt, because draft number is not
      specified in other references. The [LSP-STITCHING] reference has
      similar problem.
    * At page 10, while giving example 2 you write R0-X1-"ASR1"-ABR3.
      Here ASR1 should be ABR1.
    * While explaining 4.1.1 Case1, you specify ABR1 without defining it
      first. I suggest that change following line.  "R0 then computes
      the path to reach the selected next hop ABR and signals the path
      message" to "R0 then computes the path to reach the selected next
      hop ABR (ABR1) and signals the path message"

Faisal Aslam