The MPLS WG Archive

["Feng, Mark" <m_feng@trillium.com>]

I am working on the assumption that the second one will be ignored,
regardless the content of the first ERO object.

- Mark

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Charlap [mailto:David.Charlap@marconi.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 1:02 PM
> To: mpls@UU.NET
> Subject: 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
>