OK - what I'm suggesting is discussing how this approach is similar to LSR ping for numbered interfaces. I think it's a useful additional point to make and helps motivate the need for the rest of the approach - for unnumbered interfaces.
Joe On 7/5/2016 11:29 AM, Ron Bonica wrote: > Hi Joe, > > That's right. If we used LSR Ping, the probed interface would have to be > numbered. > > Ron > > >> I'm speaking of a different case: >> >> - send a ping to interface B >> let's say that ping fails because you don't have a route to B >> that would fail for both ping and eping >> >> - send a ping to interface C >> let's say that works because you do have a route to C >> that would work for both ping and eping >> >> - send a ping LSR to B via C >> that ping seems like it would work now, i.e., LSR ping would reach B and >> get >> a response through C even though B isn't directly reachable >> that would work for both ping and eping >> >> The unique aspect of eping is being able to ping (or get status) about >> interfaces without names. Both LSR ping and eping are equally capable of >> getting status about an *address* that is not otherwise reachable (e.g., >> because of routing issues). >> >> Joe _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
