The MPLS WG Archive

[Curtis Villamizar <curtis@fictitious.org>]

In message <20021213111527.V30401-100000@kummer.juniper.net>, Kireeti Kompella 
writes:
> Hi Curtis, Shahram:
> 
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
> 
> > > I was more thinking in terms of how to make sure the backup/detour
> > > paths are working fine, while the traffic is still on the working path.
> >
> >
> > Currently you'd have to do that from each PLR.
> 
> Agreed.  One question is, do the PLRs do this autonomously, or should
> this be triggered by LSP pings for the protected LSPs (to be more
> accurate, LSP traceroutes)?  For now, I'm happy to go with the former.
> 
> > We also don't provide a
> > means to tell a specific PLR to exercise its detour and report back.
> 
> Having the PLR exercise (i.e., send pings along) its detours is up
> to the implementation.  Right now, there is no LSP ping mechanism for
> reporting back.  Should there be?  (If so, I would rather leave it to
> a follow-up doc.)
> 
> > Let's wait and hear from Kireeti or other authors whether they think
> > anything should be added or whether the intent is to require testing
> > initiated at each PLR.
> 
> You've heard from me (insofar as you can hear email) :-)
> 
> Kireeti.


I like the extension doc idea.  If there is a perceived need (from
those who deployed it) after MPLS-ping is deployed, an extention can
be added.

Curtis