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

Hi Shiv, Nitin,

I will updated the P2MP OAM draft to reflect the PHP scenario. 

So does PHP always happen before bud node? Consider the following
topology:

  H - M1 - B - M2 - T

Here:
 H: Head
 M1, M2: Two mid-point nodes
 B: Bud
 T: Tail

So will both M1 and M2 send out unlabelled packets? Will the TTL of the
packet cause any different behavior from M1 and M2?

Also, your suggestion applies to only packets with T bit turned on,
correct? If it is for all ping/trace packets, then I foresee some
issues, where certain nodes will never respond.

Thanks,
Shaleen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shivakumar Channalli [mailto:shivakumar@juniper.net]
> Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2010 11:13 AM
> To: Santiago Alvarez (saalvare); Nitin Bahadur; Shaleen Saxena
> (ssaxena)
> Cc: mpls@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [mpls] Last Calls on P2MP LSP Ping and Enhanced DS Map
> 
> 
> |> 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