The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2001-Jul> msg00160



[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: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 10:25:32 -0400
  • cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica@mci.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)


George> The mechanism is  intentionally tied to the control  plane to ensure
George> that the source  is properly informed even if  the reverse data path
George> may be broken.  

If  the reply is  encapsulated in  a UDP  packet which  is addressed  to the
tunnel head and has router alert  set, isn't this just as effective, without
the dependence on the control plane?