The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2001-Jul> msg00154



[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: Matt Squire <mattsquire@acm.org>
  • Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 23:07:18 -0400
  • CC: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>, raszuk@cisco.com, Ron Bonica <rbonica@MCI.NET>, Dave Cooper <dcooper@gblx.net>, mpls-list <mpls@UU.NET>, mpls-ops <mpls-ops@mplsrc.com>

Eric Rosen wrote:
> 
> Eric> We just need to invent a way to ensure that the UDP packet follows the
> Eric> IP hop-by-hop  path,  rather  than  being  sent through  an  LSP.
> 
> Yakov> or just use what is described in draft-pan-lsp-ping-00.txt.
> 
> The point is to find a simple mechanism that does not depend on a particular
> control plane.

To jump on an already crowded bandwagon...

Having an LSP ping that is signalling protocol dependent does suck.  But
I agree that if they only thing you're sure about in the reverse
direction is the reverse control path, then it might have to be used. 

To this end, it would seem simple enough to compartmentalize the
signalling aspects of the proposed LSP ping that it has some header
stuff and then some signalling protocol specific TLV.  The RSVP TLV
could be as described in this draft, and a CR-LDP TLV could be just as
easily defined (maybe just the LSP ID?).  So at least the methodology
would be consistent as well as the main packet format and port numbers,
etc., with signalling specific junk tacked onto the end.

- Matt