Last Call Review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-14
review-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-14-tsvdir-lc-black-2013-09-24-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast |
|---|---|---|
| Requested rev. | no specific revision (document currently at 16) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Transport Area Directorate (tsvdir) | |
| Deadline | 2013-09-23 | |
| Requested | 2013-09-10 | |
| Authors | Chaitanya Kodeboniya, Rahul Aggarwal, Yakov Rekhter, Yuji Kamite, Luyuan Fang | |
| Draft last updated | 2013-09-24 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Telechat review of -15 by Wassim Haddad
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -14 by Catherine Meadows (diff) Tsvdir Last Call review of -14 by David Black (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | David Black |
| State | Completed | |
| Review | review-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-14-tsvdir-lc-black-2013-09-24 | |
| Reviewed rev. | 14 (document currently at 16) | |
| Review result | Ready with Nits | |
| Review completed: | 2013-09-24 |
Review
review-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-14-tsvdir-lc-black-2013-09-24
I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area directorate's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors for their information and to allow them to address any issues raised. When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this review together with any other last-call comments they receive. Please always CC âtsv-dir at ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review. Document: draft-ietf-l2vpn-vpls-mcast-14 Reviewer: David L. Black Review Date: September 23, 2012 IETF LC End Date: September 23, 2012 Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed before publication. This draft describes multicast optimizations for VPLS via use of MPLS multicast distribution trees within the service provider (SP) network. In general, the techniques in this draft are an improvement, as they should typically result in reduction of SP network traffic required to carry the same level of multicast traffic originating from the VPLS edges. I have reviewed primarily for transport-related topics; while I don't have the expertise to review for MPLS and VPLS concerns, I'm confident in the expertise of this author team in those technologies. I found a couple of items that are effectively editorial: (1) The techniques in this draft appear to add an MPLS label to the stack in order to identify the MPLS multicast tree. Does that added label raise any MTU concerns in practice? (2) Two techniques used by this draft - replication of traffic within a multicast tree, and flooding of traffic (section 14) - could be employed as traffic amplifiers in denial of service attacks. A short discussion of this possibility and the applicability of countermeasures described in this draft, RFC 4761 and/or RFC 4762 would be good to add to the security considerations section. Thanks, --David ---------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MAÂ 01748 +1 (508) 293-7953ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 david.black at emc.comÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 ----------------------------------------------------