The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2001-Jul> msg00285



[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, 18 Jul 2001 09:51:15 -0400
  • cc: "Punj, Arun" <Arun.Punj@marconi.com>, mpls-list <mpls@UU.NET>
  • 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)


Ping> The problem with this approach is: there is no guarantee that the
Ping> returning path (with or without IP Router Alert) won't go over an LSP.
Ping> If that LSP is bad, we are in trouble.

Since tunnels can be nested, isn't is possible that in a traffic engineered
path <R1,  R2, R3,  ..., Rn>,  R2 and R3,  say, are  IGP adjacencies  over a
virtual interface that  is actually a pair  of LSPs (one from R2  to R3, one
from R3 to R2)?  In such a  case there is no guarantee that the control path
(forward and reverse) does not include an LSP.