Subject: RE: LSP-ping and Keepalive [was Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-pan-ls p-ping-00.txt] ]

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 09:45:26 +0100

S.Matsushima wrote 13 July 2001 06:13
> Hi All,
> 
> I'm glad that mpls guys think LSP condition check and failure detect
> is neccesary feature. Because, I'v described it as LSP-keepalive in
> draft-satoru-mpls-1hop-lsp-00.txt.
NH=> MPLS LSPs create new layer networks by definition, ie a new data-plane
structure is defined.  This is therefore subject to new failure modes that
are not relevant to any other technology.  Further, there should not be (i)
any assumptions about the higher layer client layer technology supported
(see Shaharm Davari's last posting on this) or (ii) reliance on some other
layers data-plane OAM mechanisms to detect/diagnose/handle MPLS layer
failures or (iii) reliance on a specific control-plane protocol (in this
case RSVP-TE signalling). MPLS data-plane OAM should be able to stand alone
without any cross-layer or cross-plane assumptions.
> 
> Keepalive is a proactive failure detecting method for some data-link,
> routing-protocol and session.
NH=> I agree any solution needs to be proactive, ie its no good relying on
the customer to act as the detection device.......but before we can evaluate
any solution we have to agree on what requirements it should meet, and this
is just one of them.  We, along with several other operators and vendors,
have posted a 'requirements' ID (draft-harrison-mpls-oam-req-00.txt) that
any MPLS OAM solution should meet.  If this work is not suitable/appropriate
then fine.....but I feel the authors of the Ping draft should explain what
is wrong with these requirements, what the requirements should be, and then
how their solution meets these requirements.  
<snipped to end>

---

From: "S.Matsushima" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 19:48:02 +0900

Neil,

I think you right and necessary things generally, but is there anyone
who want to all of the thing you said?
Right now, you know even IP based MPLS network does not have any
LSP-ping or Keepalive mechanism!
Thus, first of all, I think we should make it for IP based MPLS.

--
Satoru Matsushima

From: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: LSP-ping and Keepalive         [was Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-pan-ls p-ping-00.txt] ]
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 09:45:26 +0100