draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping-05.txt   draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping-06.txt 
skipping to change at page 1, line 16 skipping to change at page 1, line 16
Expires: November 19, 2015 I. Minei Expires: November 19, 2015 I. Minei
Google, Inc. Google, Inc.
M. Conn M. Conn
D. Pacella D. Pacella
L. Tomotaki L. Tomotaki
M. Wygant M. Wygant
Verizon Verizon
May 18, 2015 May 18, 2015
LSP Self-Ping LSP Self-Ping
draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping-05 draft-bonica-mpls-self-ping-06
Abstract Abstract
When certain RSVP-TE optimizations are implemented, ingress LSRs can When certain RSVP-TE optimizations are implemented, ingress LSRs can
receive RSVP RESV messages before forwarding state has been installed receive RSVP RESV messages before forwarding state has been installed
on all downstream nodes. According to the RSVP-TE specification, the on all downstream nodes. According to the RSVP-TE specification, the
ingress LSR can forward traffic through an LSP as soon as it receives ingress LSR can forward traffic through an LSP as soon as it receives
a RESV message. However, if the ingress LSR forwards traffic through a RESV message. However, if the ingress LSR forwards traffic through
the LSP before forwarding state has been installed on all downstream the LSP before forwarding state has been installed on all downstream
nodes, traffic can be lost. nodes, traffic can be lost.
skipping to change at page 2, line 35 skipping to change at page 2, line 35
described in the Simplified BSD License. described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. Applicability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. The LSP Self-ping Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. The LSP Self-ping Message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. LSP Self Ping Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4. LSP Self Ping Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Bidirectional LSP Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5. Bidirectional LSP Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Rejected Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6. Rejected Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
Ingress Label Switching Routers (LSR) use RSVP-TE [RFC3209] to Ingress Label Switching Routers (LSR) use RSVP-TE [RFC3209] to
skipping to change at page 8, line 10 skipping to change at page 8, line 10
o The active side calculates ERO, signals LSP and runs LSP Self-ping o The active side calculates ERO, signals LSP and runs LSP Self-ping
o The Passive side reverses ERO, signals LSP and runs another o The Passive side reverses ERO, signals LSP and runs another
instance of LSP Self-ping instance of LSP Self-ping
o Neither side forwards traffic through the LSP until local LSP o Neither side forwards traffic through the LSP until local LSP
Self-ping returns TRUE Self-ping returns TRUE
The two LSP Self-ping sessions, mentioned above, are independent of The two LSP Self-ping sessions, mentioned above, are independent of
one another. They are not required to have the same Session-ID. one another. They are not required to have the same Session-ID.
Each endpoint can forward traffic through the LSP as soon as the its
local LSP Self-ping returns TRUE. Endpoints are not required to wait
until both LSP Self-ping sessions have returned TRUE.
6. Rejected Approaches 6. Rejected Approaches
In a rejected approach, the ingress LSR uses LSP-Ping to verify LSP In a rejected approach, the ingress LSR uses LSP-Ping to verify LSP
readiness. This approach was rejected for the following reasons. readiness. This approach was rejected for the following reasons.
While an ingress LSR can control its control plane overhead due to While an ingress LSR can control its control plane overhead due to
LSP Ping, an egress LSR has no such control. This is because each LSP Ping, an egress LSR has no such control. This is because each
ingress LSR can, on its own, control the rate of the LSP Ping ingress LSR can, on its own, control the rate of the LSP Ping
originated by the LSR, while an egress LSR must respond to all the originated by the LSR, while an egress LSR must respond to all the
 End of changes. 3 change blocks. 
2 lines changed or deleted 5 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.42. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/