The MPLS WG Archive

[Shahram Davari <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com>]

Curtis,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 1:36 PM
> To: Shahram Davari
> Cc: 'curtis@fictitious.org'; Ping Pan; Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALCTA;
> mpls@UU.NET
> Subject: Re: MPLSOAM BOF meeting draft minutes 
> 
> 
> 
> In message 
> <4B6D09F3B826D411A67300D0B706EFDE84A48B@nt-exch-yow.pmc-sierra.bc.ca
> > > 
> > > And since the RESV Path must exist for the LSP to remain 
> signaled you
> > > have no valid argument pertaining to the lack of a reverse path.
> > > Good.  We're making progress.
> > 
> > Your assumption: "RESV Path must exist for the LSP" is 
> wrong. What about LDP,
> >  CR-LDP, BGP or even
> > configured LSPs that don't have RESV path. I think you are 
> assuming everybody
> > MUST use RSVP-TE.
> > 
> > -Shahram
> 
> 
> LDP has a set of TCP paths so its signal path must have integrity.
> Therefore the network is not partitioned.  If IP routing is not
> working you'll have plenty of alarms to tell you that unless we're
> talking about a operator with no clue whatsoever.

So what? Ping's proposal REQUIRES a disjoint path from the IP hop-by-hop
return path in order to verify that the ICMP echo failure was not due to the
IP hop-by-hop return path failure. I never said no IP path is available for
non-RSVP-TE networks, what I said was that no non-hop-by-hop return path is
available in non-RSVP-TE networks.

I think you better talk to Ping Pan. He will tell you why he needs not only
an IP hop-by-hop return path, but he needs another Disjoint return path.

> 
> I wouldn't mind continuing this conversation but it does not seem
> productive and I have some pudding to finish.

Either I am not able to convey the fact that Ping's draft requires TWO DISJOINT 
return paths, or you pretend not to get it.

-Shahram

 

> 
> Curtis
>