The MPLS WG Archive

[Rohit Chhapolia <rohit@globespan.net>]

Lou,

Probably I don't understand something here. But I think
that if a message is not addressed directly to a node and
RA isn't included, it will be forwarded by the IP layer to
the next hop based on the destination address. It should be
treated just like any other data packet in this regard.

Rohit

Lou Berger wrote:
> 
> 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.

-- 
Rohit Chhapolia
Globespan, Inc.
voice: 732-345-6237
mailto:rohit@globespan.net
http://www.globespan.net