The MPLS WG Archive

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

Rahul:

You are missing the point, if we do not know how ECMP is implemented, we
cannot critique the solutions or participate in the design. IMHO properly
characterizing the dataplane is a pre-requisite to being able to design
maintenance procedures. For example VCCV proposes using the router alert
label as an alternative to the PW-CW **because** after much teasing out, the
proposing vendor's ECMP implementation only hashes bottom label and payload
and the RA label would be above the bottom label. Is that true of other
vendors???? Is this solution acceptable only because everyone else would
have to use the CW...(so there is an escape clause)?

IMHO the variations in ECMP that would be encountered by OAM are of
practical interest to both protocol design and independent of generating a
framework document. It is not an issue with the architecture, it is a
pre-requisite to working on it.

cheers
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rahul Aggarwal [mailto:rahul@juniper.net] 
> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 2:51 PM
> To: Allan, David [CAR:NS00:EXCH]
> Cc: 'tnadeau@cisco.com'; mpls@UU.NET
> Subject: RE: on the mpls oam framework 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Dave,
> 
> >
> > BTW, would be nice to get some other opinions, IMHO this is rather 
> > fundamental....
> >
> 
> To reiterate what has already been said on this thread. A 
> MPLS OAM framework document must a) Follow the MPLS 
> architecture and b) Discuss an OAM framework that concerns 
> *practical* problems seen in MPLS deployments.
> 
> If folks have issues with MPLS architecture/usage, it should 
> be documented elsewhere, not in the OAM framework document.
> 
> Regards,
> rahul
> 
> 
> > cheers
> > Dave
> >
> >
>