[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-node-id-based-hello-00.txt

hi adrian,

sorry for the delayed response - see in-line

2. Introduction
   Even in the case of packet MPLS, when link failure detection is
   performed by some means other than RSVP Hellos (e.g., [BFD]), the use
   of node-id based Hellos is also optimal for detection of signaling
   adjacency failures for RSVP-TE.
This optimally only applies when there is more than one link between a pair of node,
right?
Say so?
Ditto section 3.

yes and here also one has to clarify the GMPLS PSC vs MPLS point already raised

2. Introduction
   This document also clarifies the use of node-id based Hellos when all
   or a sub-set of TE links are unnumbered. This draft also clarifies
   use of node-id based Hellos in these scenarios.
Repeated?

3. Node-id based RSVP Hellos
   When a node receives a Hello packet where the destination IP address
   is its local node-id as advertised in the IGP-TE topology, the node
   MUST use its node-id in replying to the Hello message.
This is an interesting use of MUST when the receiving node knows that the use of node-id
is inappropriate.

yes this part of the text needs to be clarified (this paragraph as well as the previous would benefit from this revision

thanks,
- dimitri.

I think it is really cute that Danny and Reshad have decided to swap email addresses :-)




.