IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping

Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Thu, 12 March 2015 02:41 UTC

Return-Path: <rbonica@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A38BD1A89D3 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 19:41:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gPtMgFyrxbmB for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 19:41:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1on0778.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::778]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 365871A89FD for <mpls@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Mar 2015 19:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from CO1PR05MB444.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.73.140) by CO1PR05MB460.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.72.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.99.14; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 02:41:08 +0000
Received: from CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.73.146) by CO1PR05MB444.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.73.140) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.106.15; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 02:41:06 +0000
Received: from CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.13.61]) by CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.13.61]) with mapi id 15.01.0106.007; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 02:41:06 +0000
From: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
To: "lizho.jin@gmail.com" <lizho.jin@gmail.com>, mpls-chairs <mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping <draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping@tools.ietf.org>, mpls-ads <mpls-ads@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping
Thread-Index: AQHQUBZCJvzLYgooPEWTjWPAAzQbFJ0V/JCHgAI9/kA=
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 02:41:06 +0000
Message-ID: <CO1PR05MB44220F75FD88E69A2E274B1AE060@CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <54EC4776.5040402@pi.nu> <2015031100220789189743@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <2015031100220789189743@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.13]
authentication-results: gmail.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CO1PR05MB444; UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CO1PR05MB460;
x-forefront-antispam-report: BMV:1; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(74316001)(230783001)(122556002)(87936001)(86362001)(40100003)(2656002)(33656002)(106116001)(99286002)(19300405004)(19580395003)(19609705001)(76576001)(50986999)(46102003)(2501003)(92566002)(76176999)(54356999)(16236675004)(2950100001)(2900100001)(62966003)(77156002)(102836002)(15975445007)(66066001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CO1PR05MB444; H:CO1PR05MB442.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CO1PR05MB444A8A455749BA4F65B4DF5AE060@CO1PR05MB444.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(5002009)(5005006); SRVR:CO1PR05MB444; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CO1PR05MB444;
x-forefront-prvs: 05134F8B4F
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CO1PR05MB44220F75FD88E69A2E274B1AE060CO1PR05MB442namprd_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 12 Mar 2015 02:41:06.4170 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CO1PR05MB444
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/ZQJdVx0s1b9bIINwowH1ukIYsoE>
Cc: mpls <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 02:41:30 -0000

Lizhong,

In your message review of draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping, you say:

“Reply message may not be able to route back to the ingress if the ingress IP address is not directly IP reachable for the egress node.”

This is most certainly true. The ingress node can prevent this problem by choosing the destination address carefully. For example, it the ingress node just signaled an LSP using RSVP-TE, it should use the same address in the MPLS Self-ping message that it used in the RSVP exchange.

                                                                               Ron

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email