The MPLS WG Archive

[Brijesh Kumar <Brijesh@coronanetworks.com>]

Title: RE: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-pan-lsp-ping-01.txt]

From this draft:

   When the ingress LSR suspects that the LSP may have failed and the
   RSVP control plane shows the LSP as operational, the ingress LSR MUST
   send LSP-ping messages to the egress over the LSP, periodically.  The
   value of the time interval should be configurable.

Could you please tell me what do you mean by "LSR suspects"? In other words,
what is the triggering input for LSR to start "suspecting" the LSP may have failed?

It will be better if you replace "suspect" with "detect" in your draft as suspect is an imprecise human emotion and no operator would like routers that have negative emotions ;-).

In addition, I do have issues with introducing a mechanism dependent on a particular signalling protocol for a generic problem - testing liveness of the label switched data path. Secondly, can we have some input/justification with regards to the assumption that there is a need to detect such a failure since only cause for such a failure given in the draft is "memory Corruption". What causes so called memory corruption? Are we trying to repair badly written code here?

Cheers,

--brijesh
Corona Networks Inc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ping Pan [mailto:pingpan@juniper.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 8:54 AM
> To: mpls-list
> Subject: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-pan-lsp-ping-01.txt]
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Here is an updated version of LSP-ping. We have taken the suggestions
> from George and Sanjay.
>
> Thanks!
>
> - Ping
>