Subject: RE: Last Call: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC

From: Gregory Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 19:24:41 -0400

I support publication.
Please consider my comments as LC comments.

Regards,
Greg
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 1:02 PM
Subject: Comments to draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations
To: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

Dear Authors,
please find my comments below:

 *   page 9, first para s/we loose out/we lose out/ - two times
 *   page 9, second to last para "Partition of the network into incompatible and unconnected islands is neither desirable nor acceptable." While I agree with the former, the latter is highly subjective and absolutely unenforceable. As vendors we give operators loaded gun and a warning. What they do with them might surprise and amaze us all.
 *   Section 4.4, first para: "There are three MPLS signaling control protocols used for distributing labels to set up LSPs and PWs in MPLS networks: LDP, RSVP-TE, and GMPLS." Perhaps GMPLS in this list should be replaced by BGP/MPLS. RSVP-TE is equally used as signaling protocol to distribute MPLS and GMPLS label information. There are three paradigms that operate with distinct sets of constructs:
    *   LDP MPLS, a.k.a. IP/MPLS;
    *   TE-MPLS;
    *   TE-GMPLS.
 *   Section 4.4, second para. Would note that relationship between LDP and TE-(G)MPLS networks might be not only as peering but as client-server, e.g. LDP over RSVP-TE tunnels that could be MSPL-TP.

Regards,
Greg