The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] ERO question in RSVP-TE
I've a question regarding explicit route objects (EROs) in RSVP-TE. RFC 3209 says (section 4.3): If a Path message contains multiple EXPLICIT_ROUTE objects, only the first object is meaningful. Subsequent EXPLICIT_ROUTE objects MAY be ignored and SHOULD NOT be propagated. I'm wondering about one specific possible caveat here. What if there are two ERO objects, and the first is malformed in a way that would cause it to be ignored (for instance, it contains no subobjects). Should the second ERO then be used? Or should the second one still be ignored, even though the first ERO is meaningless? I'm inclined to believe that the second ERO should still be ignored, but I'd appreciate some confirmation from others who are working on the protocol. -- David
|
|