The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2002-Sep> msg00001



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

Questions/Comments regarding draft-yasukawa-mpls-rsvp-multicast

  • From: "Reddy, Vikram" <vikramr@netplane.com>
  • Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 09:18:44 -0400
  • Cc: "'mpls@UU.NET'" <mpls@UU.NET>

Hi all,

I have a few questions/comments regarding the RSVP multicast draft.

1) Can a mulicast address be a part of the TERO (as a Leaf node address).
    I have in mind a multicast LSP with a sub-tree containing the nodes of
another muticast group.

    If not I would like to know the reason for the following statement in
section 3.7.1.2

  "A loose explicit route allows an external routing algorithm to decide the
route between specified nodes.  
   Multicast routing algorithm such as PIM-SM[8] and MOSPF[9] are examples
of such algorithms. 
   These routes are selected at each link of the tree. "

The above statements seem to imply that if there is a loose hop (i.e
incomplete information at the source),
then there is a need at the intermediate nodes for the existence of
multicast routing capabilities to resolve
it even further. 
My question is, if we use only Unicast address as ER hops in the TERO, what
is the need for the exsitance of 
mulicast information at the intermediate nodes.

2) Typo in Section 4.5.1. Instead of 
   TERO is added to the Resv message. 
  it should be "TERO is added to the Path message. "
3) In section 5.1, regarding the statement.
"This grafting process is initiated not only by the sender node but also by
the NMS. "
What is meant by the above statement. I would think that the NMS cannot
directly signal a grafting
process. What probably is meant is, the NMS can signal the ingress to
initiate a grafting process.
In any case, it is always the ingress which signals a grafting process as
far as RSVP is considered.
NMS can never directly signal a grafting process.

4) In section 5.2 regarding the statement.
"This pruning process is initiated not only by the sender node but also by
the NMS. "
Same argument as above.
5) After a graft notify/join notify/ prune notify/leave notify are received
by the ingress, the ingress should
update the TERO. This is not specified. 

6) Since there are new messages introduced, it would be more helpful if
there is explicit mention of how each 
message is sent i.e with or withiout router alert etc.

Thanks,
Vikram.