The MPLS WG Archive

[Alia Atlas <aatlas@avici.com>]

The concept of avoiding the reserved labels in an MPLS hash as a "best way" 
makes some sense, though it would probably only be gradually available as 
hardware changes.  Doing this would make OAM work for pseudo-wires, where 
there is no underlying packet information which can be examined and where 
the TTL is fixed.

But this does change fast-path hardware...

Doing JUST that doesn't have bad impact on load-balancing of microflows (or 
identifying as small a microflow as possible).

Alia

At 07:36 AM 11/19/2002 -0800, Shahram Davari wrote:
>Hi,
>
>One of the criticism for this draft was that it is designed to overcome
>Y.1711 limitation, in which a reserved label is used. As I mentioned
>in the meeting the MPLS-Ping also requires usage of an extra reserved
>label for non-IP carrying LSPs:
>
>   "To test an LSP that carries non-IP traffic, before injecting ICMP and
>    MPLS ping messages into the LSP, the IPv4 Explicit NULL label should
>    be prepended to such messages."
>
>So this draft is equally applicable to MPLS-ping.
>
>Yours,
>Shahram