The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2001-Jul> msg00152



[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: Eric Rosen <erosen@cisco.com>
  • Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 16:19:33 -0400
  • cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica@MCI.NET>, Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, Dave Cooper <dcooper@gblx.net>, mpls-list <mpls@UU.NET>, mpls-ops <mpls-ops@mplsrc.com>
  • User-Agent: EMH/1.10.0 WEMI/1.13.2 (Mochimune) FLIM/1.12.1(Nishinokyō) Emacs/20.6 (sparc-sun-solaris2.5.1)MULE/4.0 (HANANOEN)


Robert> What you need to  invent is a way not just for  tail not to send the
Robert> proposed UDP  reply the same way as  they send ICMP one  but also to
Robert> make sure each subsequent node does the same.

Why is it necessary  that the UDP reply "go the same  way" as anything else?
It just  has to  follow a  hop-by-hop IP path,  so that  LSP failure  in the
reverse direction cannot cause it to be lost.