The MPLS WG Archive[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]
Robert, See my comment below. Irfan Lateef > >Eric> I guess I'm also having some trouble understanding why the >LSP-ping >Eric> mechanism needs to be specific to a particular control protocol. >Why >Eric> not just use a UDP packet to send the response back to the >tunnel >Eric> head? It won't necessarily travel back along the control path, >but >Eric> does that really matter? > >Robert> It may disappear the same way as the original icmp test so the >head >Robert> will assume that LSP is down while it is in fact up. > IF this UDP packet cannot be delivered to the head end, will it not generate an ICMP packet to the tail end? And if it does one can send a message to the NMS. Secondly, if UDP is a concern then why cant we use TCP, open a socket and send the message, so the tail end can be sure that the message will indeed be delivered. >We just need to invent a way to ensure that the UDP packet follows the >IP >hop-by-hop path, rather than being sent through an LSP. That >would >eliminate the worry about MPLS data plane problems in the >reverse >direction. It does leave a hole in the situation where the RSVP-TE >control >plane is working although there is no IP connectivity from the tail to >the >head, but that doesn't seem like too big of a hole. > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com |
|