The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2001-Jul> msg00131



[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: Ping Pan <pingpan@juniper.net>
  • Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:05:34 -0700
  • CC: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, erosen@cisco.com, Dave Cooper <dcooper@gblx.net>, mpls-list <mpls@UU.NET>, mpls-ops <mpls-ops@mplsrc.com>
  • Organization: Juniper Networks

Ron,

Ron Bonica wrote:
> 
> Ping,
> 
> Shouldn't the mechanism be generalized? 

It should.

> Possibly made independant of the signaling mechanism? 

Agree, if we don't introduce more potential code bugs and network
instability with the new approach. :-) 

> Don't LSPs that are established by LDP (or foo) need
> this functionality, too?

They do.

Actually, we have thought about this for a while. Unfortunately, LDP and
RSVP-TE are two very different protocols. Having a generic mechanism to
cover both cases can make the whole thing complex, and hard to deploy,
and hard to implement and debug. If you have ideas on this topic, let's
talk.

If you look at our proposal, when it is used, the existing MPLS
operation inside the network is not disturbed at all. The processing
overhead on the LSR's is very small. And the implementation won't be
very difficult. 

>
> Also, wouldn't this functionality also be useful for non-MPLS tunnels?
> 

The lsp-ping proposal is to solve the problem where control-plane cannot
detect data-plane failure. Would it happen to non-MPLS tunnels?

Regards,

- Ping