The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2001-Jul> msg00076



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

[Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-pan-lsp-ping-00.txt]

  • From: Ken Nagami <ken.nagami@toshiba.co.jp>
  • Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 15:05:38 +0900
  • Cc: George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com>, mpls-list <mpls@UU.NET>, mpls-ops <mpls-ops@mplsrc.com>, Nischal Sheth <nsheth@juniper.net>, Dave Cooper <dcooper@gblx.net>
  • Organization: Toshiba
  • User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.4.0 (Rio) SEMI/1.13.7 (Awazu) FLIM/1.13.2 (Kasanui) Emacs/20.7 (i386--freebsd) MULE/4.0 (HANANOEN)
  • X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140)

Hi Ping, 

>> You don't give a message type for the LSP-ping.  Were you thinking of
>> a new message?  Perhaps the Notify message could be used?
>> 

>> For LSP-ping messages, the echo packets are encapsulated in UDP with a
>> well-known port number. At the egress, the LSR picks up the echo by
>> "listening" to the UDP port, and replies them back in Resv. I didn't
>> consider the Notify message.... Let me think about it.

Why do you use a RSVP RESV message for an LSP-ping reply? 
I think it is better to use an UDP packet which is the same as
LSP-ping echo message. If you don't use an MPLS control
message(RSVP-TE, LDP) for the LSP-ping, this mechanism can be used for
all kind of LSP, such as a static LSP and an LSP established by LDP.

I think the section 4 in the draft-satoru-mpls-1hop-lsp-00.txt is the same
motivation for your draft.

Regards,

Ken Nagami