The MPLS WG Archive

["Sanford, Bill" <bills@netplane.com>]

In 4.4.2 of draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-05.txt, the three possible uses
for the RRO are loop detection, up-to-date detailed path information
hop-by-hop about RSVP sessions, and to populate the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object.
In all my interoperability testing, all of these scenarios are handled by
the PATH and RESV message types.  

We should let the "RRO too large for MTU" subcode return in the ERROR SPEC
object without having to return the RRO.

Bill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Swallow [mailto:swallow@cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 3:41 PM
> To: Markus Jork
> Cc: mpls@UU.NET; swallow@cisco.com
> Subject: Re: Need for RRO Object in the Error Mesg. 
> 
> 
> > arumugamr@future.futsoft.com said:
> > > This message is regarding to the need of RRO object in the PathErr
> > > message  & ResvErr Mesg if the size of the RRO exceeds the Maximum
> > > MTU. Is it not enough to send the error message alone to 
> the Ingress
> > > of the  tunnel to get it removed? 
> > 
> > I also don't see much value in including the RRO object in the
> > error message and think this requirement should be removed from
> > the spec.
> > In addition, this part of the spec conflicts with section 3 and
> > section 4.4 of the same spec (draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-05)
> > which say that an RRO is only included in Path and Resv messages.
> > 
> > Markus
> 
> Seems that a number of folks would like to see this disappear.  Does
> anyone want to argue for keeping it?  If not I'll remove it from the
> next rev (which will be out before the cut-off).
> 
> ...George
> 
> ==================================================================
> George Swallow       Cisco Systems                   (978) 244-8143
>                      250 Apollo Drive
>                      Chelmsford, Ma 01824
>