The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2001-Jul> msg00325



[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, 19 Jul 2001 11:02:19 -0400
  • cc: Ping Pan <pingpan@juniper.net>, "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)


Sanjay> if  the  reverse LSP  (virtual  interface)  is  broken (say  due  to
Sanjay> corrupted label  maps along  the way), then  even the RESVs  for the
Sanjay> inner LSPs don't make it through, and soon enough the inner LSP will
Sanjay> be torn  down (So making echo-response  live and die  with rsvp resv
Sanjay> actually  will work fine  with nested  tunnels irrespective  of RESV
Sanjay> using a reverse LSP or native ip in the reverse direction).

Excellent point. 

So then  I think then the base  requirement for the routing  of the response
from the  egress is that it  be reverse-path-forwarded back  to the ingress,
i.e., that it follow the path of label distribution from egress to ingress.