Subject: [mpls] Comments on draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-p2mp

From: Thomas Morin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:48:27 +0200

Hi Ice,

You explained this morning that procedures to control loops for MP2MP
trees would be described in a separate draft.
I think that this is the wise choice so that the draft can quickly move
forward.

Yet, I think that  draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-p2mp should contain a short text
about MP2MP and loops, eg. something like : "Procedures to control the
effect of transient unicast routing loops on MP2MP LSPs will be covered
in a separate document".

Also, section 2.4.3.  says  that "installing the forwarding state for L'
MUST NOT be done before the forwarding state L is removed to avoid
microloops" is not really exact,  since  doing  so does  not prevent
the  microloop in itself, but just ensures that no traffic is injected
into  the loop. It would be better to say that "...MUST NOT be done
before.... to ensure that no traffic will be injected in a loop that
could possibly form due to transient unicast routing inconsistencies".
Thank you,

-Thomas