The MPLS WG Archive

[Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>]

Go back to RFC2205.  It allows for interception of protocol 46 even when RA 
is *not* included....

Lou

At 03:36 PM 6/28/00 -0400, Rohit Chhapolia wrote:
>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