The MPLS WG Archive

[Jeff Parker <jparker@nexabit.com>]

> Folks,
> 
> Yakov and Kireeti have requested that draft-kompella-lsp-hierarchy-00.txt
> be accepted as a work group document.  So far I've only seen support.
> If there are no objects by 6/27, we'll declare it so.
> 
> ...George

I find this draft a useful addition to the discussion of TE, and would
support it's adoption as an MPLS group document.

However, I am a bit puzzled by the last paragraph before
section 4.3 (bottom of page 5).

	"Route computation procedures should not perform two-way
	 connectivity check on the links used by the procedures.
	 That is, the two way check should not be performed on
	 one-way pipes, as they will fail."

I agree that relaxing this test for one-way links is a Good Thing.  But 
looking at the aged out draft "IS-IS extensions for Traffic Engineering"
<draft-ietf-isis-traffic-01.txt> I don't understand how we distinguish 
"forward adjacencies" that are unidirectional LSPs from point-to-point 
adjacencies, where we should retain the test.  

Perhaps this will be addressed in the next rev of the IS-IS TE doc.  

- jeff parker
- Lucent Technologies