The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] [mpls] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-01.txt
Colleagues, I have a couple of comments on this draft. 1) Why is it restricted to P2MP TE LSPs? mLDP signalled LSPs will also require OAM and it's not clear to me why they have been precluded by this draft. 2) Section 4.1 of draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-oam-reqs-01 states "The ability to detect defects in a P2MP LSP SHOULD not require manual, hop-by-hop troubleshooting of each LSR used to switch traffic for that LSP, and SHOULD rely on proactive OAM procedures (such as continuous path connectivity and SLA measurement mechanisms)." whereas the comments in draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-01 imply to me that proactive/continuous OAM may not be possible with the proposed solution due to scaling concerns resulting from the possibility of flooding the ingress with responses. As well as the ability to delay/jitter the echo responses has consideration been given to other potential ways to improve scalabilty for example using a Nack model for responses, somehow aggregating responses etc.? Thanks Ben -- Ben Niven-Jenkins Network Architect, BT Exact E-mail: benjamin.niven-jenkins@bt.com Office: +44 (0)1473 648225 Mobile: +44 (0)7918 077205 Fax: +44 (0)1332 578827 _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
|
|