The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2001-Jul> msg00275



[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: Alia Atlas <aatlas@avici.com>
  • Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 19:51:49 -0500
  • Cc: mpls-list <mpls@UU.NET>

At 07:46 PM 7/17/01 -0400, David Charlap wrote:

>RSVP Resv messages are targetted at the PHOP router, so even if they
>would be sent into an LSP, they'd still arrive at the same place.
>
>Forward-going messages (Path, PathTear, ResvErr and ResvConf) are sent
>with router alert and have the egress router's address in the IP
>header.  In theory, they could be forwarded into an LSP, but any router
>doing this wouldn't be able to process the messages and would therefore
>not be a useful participant in the signaling process.  (Unless that LSP
>terminates at the next-hop router.)

It can actually be useful if you want two LSRs connected by an LSP to be
logical neighbors.  
This comes up if one is using heirarchical tunnels.  For instance, consider
how you would signal a backup LSP through a bypass tunnel, if the merge
node's label weren't recorded...

Alia