Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology-05
review-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology-05-opsdir-early-dunbar-2024-05-03-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Early Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2024-05-03
Requested 2024-04-18
Requested by Jim Guichard
Authors IJsbrand Wijnands , Mankamana Prasad Mishra , Syed Kamran Raza , Zhaohui (Jeffrey) Zhang , Arkadiy Gulko
I-D last updated 2024-05-03
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -03 by Yingzhen Qu (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -05 by Mike McBride (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -05 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Secdir Early review of -05 by Christian Huitema (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -05 by Roni Even (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -02 by Gyan Mishra (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Linda Dunbar
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology by Ops Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/4R3yg0dwDp1xy6-Fw1M-PIUsGEo
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 07)
Result Has issues
Completed 2024-05-03
review-ietf-mpls-mldp-multi-topology-05-opsdir-early-dunbar-2024-05-03-00
I have reviewed this document as part of the Ops area directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Ops area directors.
Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other
last-call comments.

While the document elaborates on how to implement and signal Multi-Topology
capabilities in mLDP, it lacks a detailed discussion on scalability. With the
introduction of MT, each unique topology-path combination may require a unique
FEC. This inherently increases the number of FECs that the LDP must manage. In
large networks with multiple topologies, this could lead to a significant
increase in the number of FECs. Each topology essentially multiplies the number
of potential FECs needed, as separate FECs are necessary for the same network
prefix across different topologies. Addressing how to manage this increase
efficiently would be beneficial. It would be nice to add a Management
Consideration section to address the compounded scalability concerns when each
topology requires potentially unique FECs.

Thank you,

Linda Dunbar