Hi Theresa, Thanks again for your feedback and confirmation. The document has been scheduled for a telechat. I accept your suggestion, and I'll hold your comment for the next update of the document.
Regards, Tarek On 2/11/20, 12:23 PM, "Theresa Enghardt" <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Tarek, Thanks for the replies and the new revision, and sorry for the late response. Your recent revision addresses most of my comments. Please find one further comment below: On 29.12.19 20:38, Tarek Saad wrote: > […] > 3.3 > "the PLR MUST ensure bypass tunnel assignment can satisfy the protected LSP MTU > requirements post FRR" - Is there an existing mechanism to do this? > [TS]: Section 2.6 in RFC3209 describes a mechanism to determine whether a node should fragment or drop a packet that exceeds the Path MTU as discovered using RSVP signaling on primary LSP path. A PLR can leverage the RSVP discovered Path MTU on the backup and primary LSP path to ensure MTU is not exceeded after rerouting traffic on to the bypass tunnel. I think it'd be helpful to add a reference to that RFC and section here. Best, Theresa _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
