Subject: ERO draft

From: "Francis Arts" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 23:48:46 +0100

Hello Bora, Vach, Vishal,

Please find included some comments to your <draft-akyol-mpls-exp-ero> draft:

1) Section 2.1.3 - Abstract node.

There is no L bit in the <AN-HOP>, as was the case in the <draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-08> draft. Therefore, are the abstract nodes always to be considered strict or loose in your draft?

2) Section 3.1 - explicitly routed LSPs w/o abstract nodes and w/o loose routes.

The text states that "the only check that needs to be performed during EERO processing at each hop is for the node to see if the top of the EERO stack points to itself and send the packet out of the interface pointed to by <EERO-HOP>".

However, should in this case each <EERO-HOP> node also not check whether or not the PATH message was received on the proper interface (identified by the ingress ID in the subobject)? [I think this check would be needed in each of the cases discussed in section 3 where an <EERO-HOP> shows up?]

3) Section 3.2 - explicitly routed LSPs with abstract nodes and w/o loose routes.

The text states that "an EERO object may begin and end with an abstract node".

When would an abstract node be used as the end of an EERO object?

4) Section 3.

Are the manipulations (addition / removal) of subobjects in the EERO object meant to be the same as those mentioned in the <draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-08> draft? Or do you see deviations?

4) Contents of PHOP.
 
What is the contents of the PHOP object when sending a PATH message on an unnumbered interface?

Kind regards,

    Francis.