The MPLS WG Archive

[Eric Gray <EGray@zaffire.com>]

Bill,

	This is probably a good idea - though one
reason for including the RRO is that it might be
a good way to tell if the cause is that a message
has looped undetected for some reason.

--
Eric Gray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sanford, Bill [mailto:bills@netplane.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 5:41 AM
> To: 'George Swallow'
> Cc: 'mpls@UU.NET'
> Subject: RE: Need for RRO Object in the Error Mesg. 
> 
> 
> 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
> > 
>