Subject: [mpls] draft-nadeau-mpls-interas-lspping-02.txt

From: "Greg Mirsky" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:06:20 -0800

Dear Tom,
please find my comments to this document below (extending my question asked earlier today):
- in Section 4. Motivation written "In this case, it is commonly desirable for providers to NOT distribute the IP addresses of any of the intermediate P routers between PE1 and PE2." I think that not distributing addresses of intermediate routers would not contribute to the problem addressed in the document. Perhaps it was meant to state that addresses of LSP LERs, PE1 and PE2, might be not advertised into other provider's AS. 
- further in Section 4 said "However, because the address of PE1 is actually private to AS1 by virtue of not being distributed by ASBR1 into AS2, the P router cannot correctly forward the reply to PE1." If an AS can be characterized as "stub" AS then it is unlikely that its operator wants traffic from other ASes to traverse it. If AS, as a whole, is not stub but only part of it, e.g. OSPF stub area, then a default route must be injected by ABR into the stub area. The default route will provide "exit" for intermediate LSR P when it sends LSP Echo Reply message to the PE1. Perhaps input from network operators will help to clarify if addressed scenario is likely to happen.

Regards,
Greg
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls