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/