Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] mpls working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-data-plane-01.txt

From: Dan Frost <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 10:16:19 +0100

Hi David,

Thanks for the review.  We have discussed the issue of describing
low-level forwarding behaviour for P2MP and applications like
protection, and consider this to be outside the intended scope of this
document.  Such description is handled either in the existing references
to which this document refers, or in cases where it doesn't yet exist,
is expected to be provided by solution-specific MPLS or MPLS-TP
documents.

- Dan, Stewart and Matthew

David Allan I <[email-masked]> writes:
> HI:
>
> Looking through this document I think some things can be made more
> accurate and concise.. In particular if the nodal dataplane functions
> were actually described using the RFC3031 components: FTN, ILM and
> NHLFE.
>
> In particular where 3031 punts on handling multiple NHLFE scenarios,
> for TP they should all be exactly proscribed. The scenarios that come
> to mind being P2MP replication point, and LER for 1:1 or 1+1 protected
> paths.
>
> In addition, IP as a MAY is really FTN is a MAY, which would separate
> out dataplane behavior from use of an IP control plane via DCN or
> other means, which I believe is the intent.
>
> So where the descriptions (e.g. p2mp) are a but fuzzy and corner cases
> not really described, the above proposal would "crisp" it up a lot and
> add value to the document....
>
> Cheers
> D