The MPLS WG Archive

["Feng, Mark" <mark.feng@intel.com>]

IMO, the phop should accept the message. Keep in mind that, RRO is not
mandatory.

- Mark

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ganesh Murugesan [mailto:ganesh@laurelnetworks.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 11:04 AM
> To: 'mpls@UU.NET'
> Cc: 'lberger@movaz.com'; Ganesh Murugesan; 'swallow@cisco.com'
> Subject: Question of RRO behavior
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Section 4.4.3 of RFC 3209 quotes that
> 
>    When the destination node of an RSVP session receives a 
> Path message
>    with an RRO, this indicates that the sender node needs route
>    recording.  The destination node initiates the RRO process 
> by adding
>    an RRO to Resv messages.  The processing mirrors that of the Path
>    messages.  The only difference is that the RRO in a Resv message
>    records the path information in the reverse direction.
> 
> 
> Since there is no MUST or SHOULD used to describe the behaviour of
> the destination on receiving a PATH message with an RRO, what is the
> expected
> behavior on the node receiving the RESV message from the destination 
> if the destination decided not to place a RRO object in the 
> RESV message.
> 
> Should the Phop node drop the RESV message or forward the RESV message
> without an RRO,  or add a RRO to the outgoing RESV message or send a
> ResvErr downstream (with what error code/value)?
> 
> thanx
> ganesh
>