The MPLS WG Archive

[Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org>]

In message <4B6D09F3B826D411A67300D0B706EFDE84A47B@nt-exch-yow.pmc-sierra.bc.ca
>, Shahram Davari writes:
> Curtis,
> 
> Could you please explain this part a bit more, I can't understand your point.
> 
> -Shahram
> 
> > 4) Ping's proposal depends on the RSVP-TE return path, while Harrison's pro
> po
> > sal does not depend on
> > any specific MPLS control plane.
> 
> 
> >If two LSRs can't talk to each other using the IGP routes and IP
> >forwarding except during a brief IGP convergence transient if the IGP
> >routes just changed (which would imply a recent link failure) the ISP
> >will have plenty of "hints" to indicate that something is very
> >seriously wrong.


If two LSRs can't send IP packets between each other, then enough is
broken that the ISP has to notice it.  Plenty of alarms would be going
off.  I think any IP network operator would get this and I'm surprised
that anyone didn't.

In other words, there had better be an IP return path.  If you are
complaining that a problem may exist in some flavor of MPLS that
doesn't use an IP control plane and where the ingress and egress
cannot communicate via IP, then IMHO you can't expect to be taken very
seriously in any IETF WG.

Curtis