The MPLS WG Archive

[George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com>]

Don -

This seems to a non-sequitor.  I don't see how this comment relates to
what I wrote below.  Were you trying to answer some other message?

...George

> George to be fair I heard Dave say  that the load balancing should not 
> use certain fields which are part of the label stack. This does not 
> require that balancing be done in a prescribed manner, freedom is still 
> there. Instead load balancing should be correct with respect to all of 
> MPLS formats  including reserved labels.
> 
> Don
> 
> George Swallow wrote:
> 
> >>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.... 
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >My only point is that if your measurement is based on the assumption
> >that all load-balancing is being done in a prescribed manner, then the
> >quality of that measurement is very much dependent on the certainty
> >that all of the nodes in the path are actually behaving according to
> >that assumption.  On node behaving differently could reroute a large
> >portion (or all) of the probes.  Thus the measurement could be far
> >from the actual behavior.  
> >

==================================================================
George Swallow       Cisco Systems                  (978) 497-8143
                     250 Apollo Drive
                     Chelmsford, Ma 01824