RE: path taken by a packet feedback

[neil.2.harrison@bt.com]

I agree, maybe for different reasons...please see below.

regards Neil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Petre Dini [mailto:pdini@cisco.com]
> Sent: 26 September 2002 20:04
> To: Kireeti Kompella
> Cc: te-wg@ops.ietf.org; truongtd@iro.umontreal.ca; Petre Dini
> Subject: Re: path taken by a packet feedback
> 
> 
> At 11:11 AM 9/26/2002 -0700, Kireeti Kompella wrote:
> > > I have some questions about the new draft of the group
> >
> >This "new" draft is over 2 years old, so instead of calling it 'new',
> >might I suggest 'toddler'?
> >
> > > 1- A tunnel connect two network nodes (for exemple A and 
> B) consists of =
> > > severals paths, they are diffirents in bandwith, in 
> classe of resources =
> > > included and excluded, and each has its hops. When a 
> packet is sent from =
> > > a node (A) to other (B), the packet will take a path of 
> the tunnel. =
> > > Which information in the MIB can tell us which path is 
> currently took =
> > > (that means the packet took).
> >
> >A path has a status --
> >
> >            "The operational status of the path:
> >                 unknown:
> >                 down:        signaling failed
> 
> I think one must capture the distinction between a "down_1" due to a 
> signaling failure, and an ordered  "down_2", i.e.,  an 
> "abnormal down" 
> versus a "normal down".
NH=> When I 1st saw this mail I wondered should I correct this?   What has
'down' (of the data-plane) got to do with 'down' of the signalling (in the
control-plane)?   There is no reason why these should be connected in either
the class of network technologies that belong to co pkt-sw or co cct-sw.  Of
course control and data planes are congruous in the cnls network case....but
this case does not require signalling anyway.
> 
> >                 testing:     administratively set aside for testing
> >                 dormant:     not signaled (for a backup tunnel)
> >                 ready:       signaled but not yet carrying traffic
> >                 operational: signaled and carrying traffic."
> 
> To avoid naming confusion (operational state and and 
> operational value of 
> the operational state), I suggest "functional" for the path 
> operational 
> state signaled and carrying traffic.
> 
> 
> >Paths that are operational carry packets.  Others don't.
> >
> >If a tunnel has multiple operational paths, it is an implementation
> >decision how packets of an LSP are assigned to paths: round-robin,
> >hash-based, random, ...  Specifying this in the MIB is not usually
> >productive, especially as the common answer is hash-based, and the
> >hashes used are usually proprietary.
> >
> >Kireeti.
> 
> Petre
> 
> 
>