The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2002-Dec> msg00362



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

suggested clarification to intro parts of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp -ping-01

  • From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@fictitious.org>
  • Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 22:28:52 -0500
  • cc: curtis@fictitious.org, "David Allan" <dallan@nortelnetworks.com>, mpls@UU.NET


In message <4.3.2.7.2.20021218180224.046d5888@mira-sjc5-9.cisco.com>, Bora Akyo
l writes:
> At 03:05 PM 12/18/2002 -0500, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
> > > <DAVE> The outer LSP seems to use uniform mode as described, not pipe mod
> e
> > > in order to inherit the TTL of the inner LSP. If the outer LSP was pipe
> > > mode, then it would start with a fixed value, not copied from the inner 
> > LSP.
> >
> >The draft doesn't actually say that.
> >
> >Plus, the ingress can think its Uniform Mode and the egress can think
> >its Pipe Mode.
> 
> I think if ingress thinks uniform and egress thinks pipe, the operator has 
> a serious misconfiguration issue. In general pipe mode hides its 
> intermediary hops from the first layer of the hierarchy.
> 
> Bora


This exercise is *about* finding errors.  Right?

Providers *do* make configuration errors and it is a good thing when
tools help them identify some of the more subtle errors.

Curtis