|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: endpoint liveness (RE: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sensean ymore?)
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
|