The MPLS WG Archive

["Sean Crocker" <crockers@mail.trinicom.com>]

>> From an operational point of view, RSVP-TE normally requires CSPF
>> before signalling, which would in turn require IGP TE
>> configuration.  Wherever IGP TE is configured, RSVP-TE should also
>> be configured so the signalling would proceed across RSVP nodes
>> only.
>
>Not a requirement.

Emphasis on "operational point of view", as in normally network
operators will want to use CSPF before signalling and RSVP PATH
will probably never traverse non-RSVP nodes.  You've taken this
comment too literally.

>
>RSVP only requires a local forwarding table so that the next-hop address
>and interface for a given destination may be determined.
>
>How that forwarding table is generated is beyond the scope of RSVP.  It
>is usually built from an IGP of some kind, but that is not a
>requirement.
>
>> There is a non-RSVP node discovery mechanism though.  See RFC3209
>> 4.2.5.
>
>You mean RFC 2205.  Non-RSVP node discovery is part of the core RSVP,
>not part of the RSVP-TE extensions.

I meant what I said.  RFC3209 4.2.5 not only points to RFC2205 3.8,
it also makes the requirement unambiguous.

Sean

>-- David
>