The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2001-Dec> msg00256



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

MPLSOAM BOF meeting draft minutes

  • From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org>
  • Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 11:13:38 -0500
  • cc: "'curtis@fictitious.org'" <curtis@fictitious.org>, David Allan <dallan@nortelnetworks.com>, "Cuevas, Enrique G, ALCTA" <ecuevas@att.com>, dave.mcdysan@wcom.com, giles@packetexchange.net, Don Fedyk <dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com>, Ben.Mack-Crane@tellabs.com, mpls@UU.NET, neil.2.harrison@bt.com


In message <4B6D09F3B826D411A67300D0B706EFDE84A481@nt-exch-yow.pmc-sierra.bc.ca
>, Shahram Davari writes:
> Curtis,
>  
> > ICMP is sent to detect failure.  UDP based LSP Ping is sent after an
> > failure is detected using ICMP.  Why we need the latter is somewhat of
> > a mystery to me, apparently to either distinguish a data plane from
> > control plane failure or to to circumvent anti-ICMP religion.
> > 
> 
> May be that is why you advocate that LSP-Ping could be easily extended to oth
> er types
> of MPLS control-planes. 
> 
> The reason that you need LSP-ping after the ICMP-ping failure is that, the 
> ICMP failure could have been due to reverse IP (hop-by-hop) path failure. So
> to determine whether the LSP is down or the reverse IP path, you need a disjo
> int
> reverse path => RSVP reverse path :)

Both reverse path for ICMP and LSP are IP paths.  If they went down
control traffic wouldn't flow so they can be assumed to be up.

> -Shahram

Nice try.  

Curtis