The MPLS WG Archive

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>]

Hi Rahul,

In Minneapolis you raised a question about the P2MP LSP Ping draft.
This is captured in the minutes as...

      Rahul:   The draft tries to limit the ping to a subset of
               the recipients?

      Adrian:  Sub-set permitted in sub-set 1 or all (target
               individual recipient or whole tree)

      Rahul:   If I have a tree with a thousand egresses then I am not
               sure that that solves my problem.

The previous version of the draft had three options...
- ping one
- ping a list
- ping all

After discussion with several people (including you and Yakov in
Washington), we removed the ability to ping a list. In part, this was felt
to be reasonable because pinging a list introduced significant additional
processing at all egresses.

In Minneapolis I wasn't sure whether you were speaking in favor or against
the ability to ping a list of leaves.

We agreed that there was clearly a need to understand the requirements and
that's what I'd like to do now. Could you look at the current draft and
let me know whether it captures all of the requirements (perhaps we need
to add some more requirements text), and then we can see whether the
proposed solution addresses all of the requirements.

Thanks,
Adrian






_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls