The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2001-Jul> msg00291



[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 Gray <eric.gray@sandburst.com>
  • Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:53:40 -0400
  • Cc: Ping Pan <pingpan@juniper.net>, mpls-list <mpls@UU.NET>

Eric,

    Yes, but there are other means to determine if there is a
problem with the control path.

--
Eric Gray

You wrote:

> 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.