The MPLS WG Archive

["David Allan" <dallan@nortelnetworks.com>]

George:

If you look at my post from rather late last night, I'd question the lighter
overhead assertion. This discussion is really orthogonal to the probe
frequency and is more concerned with the probe quantity/quality to determine
there is a problem. Goodness and scalability (and again my favorite "bounded
detection time") can be expressed as how authoritative a test result is in
proportion to the messages expended. Also the fewer heuristics required to
interpret the test results, the more reliable the overall system is.... 

rgds
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Swallow [mailto:swallow@cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 11:20 AM
> To: Alia Atlas
> Cc: George Swallow; Shahram Davari; 'MPLS@UU.net'; swallow@cisco.com
> Subject: Re: Load balancing draft 
> 
> 
> > Why is it not incrementally useful?  Every LSR along the 
> path that does 
> > this decreases the cases where an OAM packet may take a 
> different route 
> > from the data packet.   It does require every LSR to implement to 
> > completely avoid OAM packets from taking different routes, but 
> > incrementally does simplify determining what happened to 
> the OAM packets as 
> > compared to the data plane packets because there are fewer 
> potential branch 
> > points.
> 
> Well if you want your CV OAM to make you pretty sure, then yes, you
> get surer as you incrementally deploy.  But most of the time you can
> be pretty sure with much lighter overhead.  So I was assuming (perhaps
> incorectly) that someone who want to send a CV OAM packet every second
> wanted to be 100% sure.
> 
> ...George
> 
> ==================================================================
> George Swallow       Cisco Systems                  (978) 497-8143
>                      250 Apollo Drive
>                      Chelmsford, Ma 01824
> 
>