The MPLS WG Archive

[Curtis Villamizar <curtis@fictitious.org>]

In message <3DFA4A2F.9B3A1341@alcatel.com>, "Cheng-Yin Lee" writes:
> Kireeti et al,
> It looks like separating the issues may be useful, for e.g. something along t
> he
> line:
> 
> For "ping" mode:
> 1) send a labeled test pkt on a p2p LSP
> 2) send a labeled test pkt on a p2p LSP, with PHP (no label after PHP)
> 3) send a labeled test pkt  on a mp2p LSP (with and without ECMP)
> 4) send a labeled test pkt on a mp2p LSP, with PHP (with and without ECMP)
> 5) FRR case, etc...
> 
> Similarly for "traceroute" mode.
> 
> This may not be the best/correct/complete way to separate the issues, if so p
> ls
> suggest other ways. But I think separating the issues may help in progressing
>  the
> draft in the WG. One may find that it may not be necessary to use 127/8, or t
> hat
> the problem could be partitioned.  Just a thought ...
> 
> thanks,
> cheng-yin


MP is not specific to p2mp.  MP applies to p2p as well.  *Any* LSP may
take a hop which splits traffic and merges it again.  The LSR that
does the split must be able to determine that a specific LSP 1) only
carries IP and can be split based on IP headers, 2) has a label stack
and can be split on labels, 3) can't be split.

Curtis