The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2001-Jul> msg00147



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

[Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-pan-lsp-ping-00.txt]

  • From: Robert Raszuk <raszuk@cisco.com>
  • Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 12:07:38 -0700
  • CC: Ron Bonica <rbonica@MCI.NET>, Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, Dave Cooper <dcooper@gblx.net>, mpls-list <mpls@UU.NET>, mpls-ops <mpls-ops@mplsrc.com>
  • Organization: Signature: http://www.employees.org/~raszuk/sig/

Eric,

> We just need  to invent a way to  ensure that the UDP packet  follows the IP
> hop-by-hop  path,  rather  than  being  sent through  an  LSP. 

Well I am afraid this is not easy. What you need to invent is a way not
just for tail not to send the proposed UDP reply the same way as they
send ICMP one but also to make sure each subsequent node does the same.
If a network would be managed by some offline tool yes the tool's
notification by the tail would be enough. If this is attractive solution
I don't know - could be an easy LSP-ping reply option.

I understand that there is great benefit to eliminate the control plane
usage but I am afraid nothing will be as realiable as either RSVP RESV
(the assumption is that the LSP is up) or IGP flooding (again control
plane). I also fail to come up with anything more simpler then just load
this msg on the RSVP RESV. 

I was watching the thread closely as it addresses one of the most
popular recently customer demand in some extent and would say that not
going forward with this proposal would hurt live deployed networks or
make implementations not interoperable. 

R.