Dear Editors,
please kindly consider my comments to the current version of this work:
* Introduction
o The third paragraph mentions that an end-to-end protection may be slower to
detect failure and perform switchover then an arbitrary local protection
method. I believe that that is not the case and, as been demonstrated by
deployments of G.8031, G.8032 and RFC 6378 end-to-end provides sub-50 msec
switchover and G.8013/Y.1731 and RFC 5884 failure detection is 10 msec.
o The last in Section 1.1 suggests that node R3 may detect failure of the
node L1 through monitoring BFD session between two nodes. Firstly, if this is
multi-hop BFD session over IP network, then there's no guarantee that its path
is co-routed with the LSP segment R1-L3. Secondly, if it is assumed that RFC
5884 may be used, I have to remind, that RFC 5884 operates between LSP end
points and R1 is not end point. Thus, Sub-Path Maintenance Entity (SPME)
co-routed with the segment R1-L3 MUST be established.
* Section 5.2
o The third paragraph assumes that if a PLR cannot establish LSP to any
listed LSR in the EGRESS_BACKUP object it SHOULD select it locally and record
it in the EGRESS_BACKUP object. I believe that that implies that a PLR, i.e.
any LSR in the MPLS domain is aware of all services, i.e. CEs, as that is
required when selecting backup egress. That is serious security concern and
must be properly addressed in Security Considerations section of the draft.
Regards,
Greg
