Subject: [mpls] RFC 4875 problems

From: "Nic Neate" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 16:28:50 +0100

Hi all,

We've just kicked off development of P2MP LSPs in our portable RSVP
stack.  I'm about to fire off four emails raising queries and possible
issues in the RFC 4875 protocol specification.

They cover the subjects listed below.  See following emails for a proper
discussion of each.

1) The P2MP re-merge logic can be triggered by sub-group
re-optimization, resulting in data loss.

2) Notify address re-writing at transit LSRs in P2MP LSPs makes Notify
messages ineffective for reporting LSR failure.

3) Queries on one-to-one fast reroute behavior for P2MP protected LSPs.
-  Backup path identifiers are not clear - I can read two
non-interoperating interpretations.
-  Not clear whether P2MP backup LSPs are allowed.
-  Not clear whether sub-group re-optimization for protected LSPs is
allowed.

4) Explicit routing queries.
-  Explicit labels may require two S2L sub-LSPs to use different labels
over parallel hops, with complexities in ERO compression and Resv
signaling.
-  ERO/SERO compression details are ambiguous, some interpretations
would not interwork.

If anyone has answers to these problems, or an interest in solving them,
please let me know.  I should be there in Dublin if anyone would like to
discuss them.

Thanks,

Nic Neate
Data Connection Ltd.
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls