Subject: RE: bug in draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-04

From: Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 09:04:27 -0000

Happy New Year Markus,

>>Section 3 of the draft states that an EXPLICIT_ROUTE object
>>is only applicable to RSVP Path messages.
>>But it also needs to go into PathTear messages so that they
>>can be routed correctly. And the ResvConf message also
>>needs the EXPLICIT_ROUTE object (if anybody cares about
>>ResvConf in the MPLS TE context).
>
>I might have been too quick calling this a bug. Thinking about
>it some more, one can figure out where to forward the PathTear
>by looking at the existing path state it refers to and take
>the explicit route from there. Was this the intention of the spec?

You're right.  The ER is already known by each RSVP LSR along the path and
so does not need to be part of the PathTear or ResvConf.

Regards,
Adrian
--
Adrian Farrel  mailto:[email-masked]
ATM, MPLS and Telecoms Development Group
Data Connection Ltd., Chester, UK
http://www.datcon.co.uk/
Tel: +44 (0) 1244 313440  Fax: +44 (0) 1244 312422