Subject: Comments to draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 13:02:03 -0700

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