The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2002-Nov> msg00136



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

Load balancing draft

  • From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@cisco.com>
  • Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:14:55 -0500
  • Cc: "David Allan" <dallan@nortelnetworks.com>, "'MPLS@UU.net'" <MPLS@UU.NET>

At 10:40 PM 11/19/2002 -0500, Alia Atlas wrote:
>At 05:45 PM 11/19/2002 -0500, Thomas D. Nadeau wrote:
>>         Not necessarily. I think you can test/trace the paths using LSP 
>> ping,
>>but of course, there is a price to pay for that too; there is no free lunch.
>>The advantage of the latter is that it works with all of the hardware
>>deployed today.
>
>How does it work today with the pseudo-wire case?  From the draft, it 
>seems that the same PW label is used, but it is not the bottom of stack, 
>b/c there is an explicit NULL underneath.
>
>So, suddenly one must forward based not only on the MPLS label but also 
>the  bottom-of-stack bit...
>
>Tell me I'm missing something here, but if the above is really what is 
>intended in the draft, I don't understand how you can claim that it is 
>compatible with current MPLS hardware.

         It is my understanding that tracing the PW "tunnel" LSP is the 
same as any
other MPLS LSP.

         --Tom