Re: working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt

[Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>]

Loa and George,

> Working Group,
> 
> this initiates a two week working group last call on
> draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt
> 
> please send comments to the MPLS working group mailling
> list and/or working co-chairs.
> 
> The last call ends eob May 28th.
> 
> The ccamp mailing list copied as this is a work that has
> an overlap between the working groups.
> 
> Loa and George

Few observations and suggestions...

(a) <Ingress LSR IP address, P2MP ID> tuple is both necessary and
sufficient to unambiguously identify a P2MP Tunnel.

(b) Further <Ingress LSR IP address, P2MP ID, LSP ID> is both
necessary and sufficient to identify a P2MP LSP.

Therefore I would suggest that draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-p2mp-05.txt
should say the following:

1. A P2MP tunnel is identified by a tuple <root node IP address,
index>, where the index value is unique within the scope of the IP
address of the root node.  The P2MP tunnel identifier <root node
IP address, index> is unique within the same scope as the root node
IP address.

2. Both the Extended Tunnel ID and the Tunnel Sender Address fields
carry the root node IP address (both fields carry the same value).
The index is carried in the P2MP ID.

3. Tunnel ID field should be set to all zeros, and be ignored on
receipt.

4. A P2MP LSP is identified by a combination of tunnel identifier
(<root node IP address, index>), and LSP ID.

With this in mind sections 4.1, 4.2, 19.1 and 19.2 should be modified
to clarify the following:

(a) SESSION identifier; 
(b) semantics of Extended Tunnel ID; semantics of the P2MP ID; 
(c) semantics of the Tunnel ID IP address in the SENDER_TEMPLATE.

Yakov.