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