The MPLS WG Archive

[Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>]

Yakov,

IP encapsulation *is* required on path messages as intermediate nodes may 
process the PATH message even if a router alert isn't included.

IP encapsulation of the Resv is beneficial as it ensures intermediate nodes 
don't hand the RSVP message to the RSVP code/module.  This is an 
optimization, hence "may" or "should" is appropriate.

Lou


At 02:57 PM 6/22/00 -0700, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
>Rohit,
>
> > In the section 5.1, it is suggested that Path/Resv message
> > should be encapsulated in another IP header if sent
> > as unicast over the control plane. Can you please
> > clarify why is this required?
>
>See below....
>
> > It should be possible to send the Resv message as it is.
>
>Agreed.
>
> > Path message can be sent without router alert to the
> > next hop IP address. In this case, IP address of the tail
> > end of the FA-LSP.
>
>Agreed.
>
>We'll correct the text in the next iteration of this document.
>
>Yakov.