Re: [mpls] Last Calls on P2MP LSP Ping and Enhanced DS Map

Shivakumar Channalli <shivakumar@juniper.net> Sat, 29 May 2010 15:15 UTC

Return-Path: <shivakumar@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC5223A6A09 for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 May 2010 08:15:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.149
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.450, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id btcsnePPFkPb for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 May 2010 08:15:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og101.obsmtp.com (exprod7og101.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.155]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C8EC3A68EB for <mpls@ietf.org>; Sat, 29 May 2010 08:15:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob101.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTAEvfmL+N3CMBbL9jgFS8K2jk2rcu38h@postini.com; Sat, 29 May 2010 08:15:13 PDT
Received: from gaugeboson.jnpr.net (10.209.194.17) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.2.254.0; Sat, 29 May 2010 08:13:26 -0700
Received: from emailbng5.jnpr.net ([10.209.194.35]) by gaugeboson.jnpr.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sat, 29 May 2010 20:43:22 +0530
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 20:43:21 +0530
Message-ID: <D4C56A454A92494AB873F2FBB8E4154807F3DDBA@emailbng5.jnpr.net>
In-Reply-To: <96327EF53EF71A48806DE2DFC034D57F0BAEA090@xmb-sjc-22b.amer.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [mpls] Last Calls on P2MP LSP Ping and Enhanced DS Map
thread-index: Acr97fovWGELdmbmzEeKyK2GG/RPxQAPfh+gAA7zTAAACB51UAADMoBgAArX9yAAAVdKwAAetk9g
References: <C8246DBC.2063E%swallow@cisco.com><D4C56A454A92494AB873F2FBB8E4154807F3DBF7@emailbng5.jnpr.net><C6921F0EC3DEDB419A67B42AB1EA2138018FA2E5@XMB-RCD-206.cisco.com><05542EC42316164383B5180707A489EE1D5F5B6AA5@EMBX02-HQ.jnpr.net><C6921F0EC3DEDB419A67B42AB1EA2138018FA56D@XMB-RCD-206.cisco.com> <05542EC42316164383B5180707A489EE1D5F5B6AB4@EMBX02-HQ.jnpr.net> <96327EF53EF71A48806DE2DFC034D57F0BAEA090@xmb-sjc-22b.amer.cisco.com>
From: Shivakumar Channalli <shivakumar@juniper.net>
To: "Santiago Alvarez (saalvare)" <saalvare@cisco.com>, Nitin Bahadur <nitinb@juniper.net>, "Shaleen Saxena (ssaxena)" <ssaxena@cisco.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 May 2010 15:13:22.0677 (UTC) FILETIME=[7A81E250:01CAFF41]
Cc: mpls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] Last Calls on P2MP LSP Ping and Enhanced DS Map
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 15:15:41 -0000

|> 1. precluding bud node support
Another way is to try to solve bud node issue in case of PHP 

|> 2. bud node receiving duplicate traffic (label and unlabeled)
|> Cheers.
Receiving unlabelled packet in case of PHP can be solved by following a
simple rule.

"In p2mp LSP case, if a node (other than pure egress) receives a +MPLS
LSP trace packet+, without any label, then we should drop the packet
without processing"

Reason: In trace route mode we want packets to reach control plane due
to TTL expiry, but in PHP p2mp mode packets are also received by bud
nodes due the PHP. As a result we can make an assumption that, the
packet received by control plane is not due to TTL expiry, and drop the
packets.


...$hiv



|-----Original Message-----
|From: Santiago Alvarez (saalvare) [mailto:saalvare@cisco.com]
|Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2010 6:03 AM
|To: Nitin Bahadur; Shaleen Saxena (ssaxena); Shivakumar Channalli
|Cc: mpls@ietf.org; Santiago Alvarez (saalvare)
|Subject: RE: [mpls] Last Calls on P2MP LSP Ping and Enhanced DS Map
|
|It seems to me that, in order to find PHP acceptable for P2MP LSPs, one
|the these two need to be acceptable:
|1. precluding bud node support
|2. bud node receiving duplicate traffic (label and unlabeled)
|Cheers.
|
|SA
|--
|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
|Of
|> Nitin Bahadur
|> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 4:52 PM
|> To: Shaleen Saxena (ssaxena); Shivakumar Channalli
|> Cc: mpls@ietf.org
|> Subject: Re: [mpls] Last Calls on P2MP LSP Ping and Enhanced DS Map
|>
|>
|> Shaleen,
|>
|> > I was referring to
|> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-te-no-php-oob-
|> > mapping-04
|>
|> This draft does not say that PHP *must not* be used ever for RSVP
|P2MP.
|> This draft specifies a requirement for non-PHP behavior and solves
|that
|> problem.
|>
|> > . Do you have an application where you use PHP? Is P2MP TE
|> > with PHP going to be deployed in service provider networks?
|>
|> Yes...we have customers (in deployment) using P2MP with PHP.
|>
|> nitin
|> _______________________________________________
|> mpls mailing list
|> mpls@ietf.org
|> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls