nanog mailing list archives
Re: endpoint liveness (RE: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sensean ymore?)
From: Petri Helenius <pete () he iki fi>
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 18:02:40 +0300
Mike Hughes wrote:
But, how does that work when you may be delivering multiple q-tags on a single GigE port (for example)? If only one tag is affected, you don't want to drop link, right? So, we're back to detection at layer 3, can I ping it, do I have adjacency, etc. Some sort of lower-level heartbeat (maybe like OAM), not dependent on IP reachability, would be a bonus - and it's probably low in the tax stakes, if it can be made simple enough.
I think pseudowire liveness (in case of ethernet pseudowires which are by nature multipoint and multi-vlan) does not really make sense but as you conclude L3 liveness does. Obviously one can repeat the exercise for everything that needs liveness but it would make more sense to have a generic way to determine L3 reachability in a robust manner. Pete
Current thread:
- endpoint liveness (RE: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense an ymore?) Lane Patterson (Aug 09)
- Re: endpoint liveness (RE: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense an ymore?) Vadim Antonov (Aug 10)
- Re: endpoint liveness (RE: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense an ymore?) Stephen Sprunk (Aug 12)
- Re: endpoint liveness (RE: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense an ymore?) Mike Hughes (Aug 10)
- Re: endpoint liveness (RE: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sensean ymore?) Petri Helenius (Aug 10)
- Re: endpoint liveness (RE: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense an ymore?) Jesper Skriver (Aug 11)
- Re: endpoint liveness (RE: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense an ymore?) Petri Helenius (Aug 11)
- Re: endpoint liveness (RE: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense an ymore?) Vadim Antonov (Aug 10)