The MPLS WG Archive

[George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com>]

> Isn't this non-standard behavior? As I understand things, basic RSVP-TE (without
> any hierarchy extensions), requires neighbors to be adjacent. 

RSVP-TE builds on RFC2205.  The assumption there was that a network
may have a mix of RSVP capable and non-RSVP capable nodes.  If a Path
message is sent to a non-RSVP node, it simply passes through to the
next node.  If that node (or some subsequent node) is RSVP capable,
then it does normal processing.  When a Resv message comes, it will be
forwarded back according to the PHOP.  

> Path and Resv messages
> are addressed to the head end and tail end of the tunnel respectively, 

Path messages are addressed to the tail of the tunnel.  Resv messages
are address to the PHOP of the corresponding Path message.

> and are processed hop-by-hop as they proceed through the network.

They may or may not be processed hop-by-hop.

> George claimed at the WG meeting in Minneapolis that no protocol
> extensions were required to implement this draft. The above seems to
> be in conflict with that claim.
>
> George: Any comments?

I stand by my claim.

...George

==================================================================
George Swallow       Cisco Systems                   (978) 244-8143
                     250 Apollo Drive
                     Chelmsford, Ma 01824