The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2002-Jan> msg00111



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

ERO question in RSVP-TE

  • From: Bora Akyol <bora@cisco.com>
  • Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 16:28:17 -0800
  • Cc: mpls@UU.NET

I don't see any reason other than bugs to generate such an object stream. 
Safe to ignore both probably.

Bora

At 04:02 PM 1/16/2002 -0500, David Charlap wrote:
>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