The MPLS WG Archive

["Hong Liao" <hliao@telcordia.com>]

Adrian,

Thanks for your pointer.

Yes, on page 38 of RSVP-TE, it says that "A received path message without an RRO
indicates that the sender node no longer needs route recording.  Subsequent Resv
messages SHALL NOT contain an RRO. "

This means it is possible that RRO is not in Resv message if the RRO is not in
the received Path message.

Thanks.

Julia






Adrian Farrel <AF@dataconnection.com> on 09/27/2000 05:16:21 PM

To:   Hong Liao <hliao@telcordia.com>, mpls@UU.NET
cc:    (bcc: Hong Liao/Telcordia)
Subject:  RE: RSVP-TE--RRO




Hi again Julia,

In this case "must" applies to "if present" and does not mean "must always
be present".

RRO is optional in a Resv but must be present in response to a Path that
contains RRO.  see section 4.4

Regards,
Adrian
--
Adrian Farrel  mailto:af@datcon.co.uk
Network Convergence Group
Data Connection Ltd., Chester, UK
http://www.datcon.co.uk/
Tel: +44 (0) 1244 313440  Fax: +44 (0) 1244 312422


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Hong Liao [mailto:hliao@telcordia.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 9:56 PM
>To: mpls@UU.NET
>Subject: RSVP-TE--RRO
>
>
>
>
>Hello,
>
>On Rsvp -TE page 17 the latest version 07.txt, it says that
>"In resv message,
>they must appear after the associated FILTER_SPEC and prior to the say
>subsequent FILTER_SPC".
>
>I understand that the LABEL object should be in RESV message,
>but in Resv
>message, in either case of FF and SE, the [<RECORD_ROUTE>] is
>optional.  Also it
>is optional in Path message.
>
>So RRO in Resv is optional or not?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Julia
>
>