The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2001-Jul> msg00163



[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: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 11:27:53 -0400
  • CC: George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com>, Ron Bonica <rbonica@mci.net>, mpls-list <mpls@UU.NET>


What prevents a packet with a router alert flag set from being sent over an
LSP?  I don't recall anything in the specs that specifies router alter packets
can't be LSP'd.

Eric Rosen wrote:

> 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?