The MPLS WG Archive

[David Charlap <David.Charlap@marconi.com>]

Hong Liao wrote:
> 
> I have question for the difference between the generation of error 'Bad
> loose node' and 'no route available toward destination'.

It is my understanding that you generate "no route" only under these 
conditions:
	- There is no ERO object present
	- There is a route, but the requested resource affinities
	  are incompatible with it.

Under all other circumstances, you should generate "bad strict node" or 
"bad loose node", depending on whether the subobject in question is 
strict or loose.

> For ex.
> 
> A -------IUT------B
> 
> 1)   A sends a Path msg with the ERO as IUT connected to A interface
> address, and unrecognized address and TesterB address, and set the L bits
> for second unrecognized address as loose node, since there is no path
> between unrecognized node and testerb, the iut should send out the path
> error msg with error code 'routing problem' and error value 'bad loose
> node'.

Correct.

> 2)  A sends a path msg with ERO as  IUT connected to A interface address,
> unrecognized address, but in the session object, put the end nodes as
> testerB, then the iut should send the path error msg with error code
> 'routing problem' and error value 'no route available towards the
> destination'.
> or I have to test the three tests mentioned in the section 4.7.4.

No.  In this case, you still have an ERO where the first non-local 
subobject is not found in the routing table, so this would still be "bad 
loose node".

If you have an ERO consisting of IUT connected to A's nterface address, 
followed by B's address (in other words, a valid ERO), along with a 
SESSION_ATTRIBUTES object that excludes the only link connecting IUT 
with B, then you would generate a "no route" PathErr message.

> If that is the case, is there any vender such as cisco or juniper, which
> can configure the Exclude-any, include-any, include-all parameters on the
> router?

The colors associated with specific links are part of interface 
configuration and are distributed via routing protocols.  The three 
masks (exclude-any, include-any, include-all) that RSVP compares these 
against are generated by ingress nodes on a per-LSP basis.

-- David