The MPLS WG Archive

[Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org>]

In message <FFFC48AEAA5F7447929F4F0D93FCC12D02B927E3@zcard031.ca.nortel.com>, "
David Allan" writes:
> 
> As I say, we all need to be able to innovate in this space. At the moment
> the majority of the list is disenfranchized. This is a problem. Either the
> WG sticks with the decision that this is not specified and recognizes that
> the quality of what it gets for interoperable OAM is unknowable, or people
> at least 'fess up informationally and we can all participate. Which version
> do you think is the IETF way....
> 
> BTW, would be nice to get some other opinions, IMHO this is rather
> fundamental....
> 
> cheers
> Dave


Dave,

MPLS Ping has a means defined to determine that an ECMP branch point
exists, and a means to provide the means to exercise each branch.
This is all independent of the algorithm used to accomplished the
split, hash based or other.  That is a move forward technically.  The
alternate of randomly spraying addresses across the 127/8 space has
also been suggested as a solution that from a practical standpoint
covers the problem, though with no certainty.

This is a solved problem.  Can we stop moving backwards.  If you can
improve on the solution, that would be welcome too.  Substituting
Y.1711 for the solutions being worked on in the IETF and complaining
that Y.1711 doesn't handle ECMP is not seen as an improvement.

Curtis