The MPLS WG Archive

[Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org>]

In message <9985F17605D2D21192D80008C75DE4BE03950A7E@exchange4.ntu.edu.sg>, She
n Gangxiang writes:
> Hi, GA,
> 
> I don't think it is necessary to explicitly point out whether the message is
> RSVP or RSVP-TE. Since RSVP-TE is an extension of RSVP, if a LSR can support
> RSVP-TE, it can definitely support RSVP. In fact, during dealing with those
> messages, a LSR can use the information whether there are some extended
> objects such as Label Request, ER, Record Route in a message to implicitly
> identify whether it is a RSVP-TE message.
> 
> If there is something missed, please kindly point out. Thanks!
> 
> Gangxiang 


Most (or all) core routers that run RSVP-TE have per microflow RSVP
explicitly disabled for scaling reasons if it is implemented by the
router.  In many cases per micrflow RSVP is not implemented by the
router so it can't be turned on.

Curtis

ps- This is not a RSVP chat group.  This is a IETF WG mailing list
were we are supposed to be discussing work on the protocols, not
answering newbie queestions (an occasional question after researching
and not finding something is fine).  [This is not directed at
Gangxiang, since he was just answering someone's question.]