The MPLS WG Archive

["Reddy, Vikram" <vikramr@netplane.com>]

Hi George,

Then, maybe the wording in the RFC should specify this. According to the
current wording, this is not explicitly mentioned. Also, the interpretation
of
"willing to receive" is from the RFC.

>From Section 2
         0x01: Refresh (overhead) reduction capable

           When set, indicates that this node is willing and capable of
           receiving all the messages and objects described in this
           document.  This includes the Bundle message described in
           Section 3, the MESSAGE_ID objects and Ack messages described
           in Section 4, and the MESSAGE_ID LIST objects and Srefresh
           message described in Section 5.  This bit is meaningful only
           between RSVP neighbors.

Thanks,
Vikram.

-----Original Message-----
From: George Swallow [mailto:swallow@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 5:35 PM
To: Reddy, Vikram
Cc: 'David Charlap'; IETF MPLS List; swallow@cisco.com
Subject: Re: RSVP Refresh Reduction question 


Reddy -

I don't like the idea of using the bit to mean "willing to receive".
For a properly compliant implementation, if you want to send then you
MUST set the bit and MUST be willing to receive.  If (for reasons that
I haven't imagined yet) you want to just receive, then just set the
bit and don't send.

As far as dealing with a *non-compliant* implementation, I completely
agree with Curtis.

...George

==================================================================
George Swallow       Cisco Systems                  (978) 497-8143
                     250 Apollo Drive
                     Chelmsford, Ma 01824