Subject: RE: Qestion

From: Shen Gangxiang <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 17:07:27 +0800

Hi, GA,

I don't think it is necessary to explicitly point out whether the message is
RSVP or RSVP-TE. Since RSVP-TE is an extension of RSVP, if a LSR can support
RSVP-TE, it can definitely support RSVP. In fact, during dealing with those
messages, a LSR can use the information whether there are some extended
objects such as Label Request, ER, Record Route in a message to implicitly
identify whether it is a RSVP-TE message.

If there is something missed, please kindly point out. Thanks!

Gangxiang 

-----Original Message-----
From: Gaitonde Anandprasanna [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2000 4:45 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Qestion

I have posted this question many times But ihave not recieved any reply.

My qeustion is how does RSVP-TE identify whether the message is RSVP or
RSVP-TE ??

Please let me know. I have read the recent draft of RSVP-TE but i could
not find any answer to my question.

If these things have not been defined by the working group then please let
me know.

Thanking in advance

Pras

                     _____________________________                  
                   _ |ANANDPRASANNA GAITONDE     | _ 
                  / )|COMP. SCIENCE & AUTOMATION |( \
                 / / |D-7,IISc HOSTEL            | \ \
                / /  |INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE|  \ \
              _( (_  |BANGALORE-560012.          |  _) )_
              (((\ \>|_/->___________________<-\_|</ /)))
              (\\\\ \_/ /LAB Ph.(080)3092906  \ \_/ ////)
               \       /HOSTEL Ph.-            \       /  
                \    _/     (080)3092452        \_    /     
                /   /-----------------------------\   \                  
               /  Email Id-                            \ 
              /      [email-masked]         \
	     ---------------------------------------------
            -----------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
		
*************************************************************************  
| | | | __ ___   _____     __ _    _ __ (_) ___ ___     __| | __ _ _   _
| |_| |/ _` \ \ / / _ \   / _` |  | '_ \| |/ __/ _ \   / _` |/ _` | | | |
|  _  | (_| |\ V /  __/  | (_| |  | | | | | (_|  __/  | (_| | (_| | |_| |
|_| |_|\__,_| \_/ \___|   \__,_|  |_| |_|_|\___\___|   \__,_|\__,_|\__, |
*************************************************************************

---

From: "Dave Wilder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 22:31:17 -0500

Hi Gaitonde,

The ID that you are looking for is in the Session Object.  RSVP-TE adds 2 new
C-type values to the Session Object; LSP_Tunnel_IPv4 and LSP_Tunnel_IPv6 which
RSVP didn't have of course.

So how does IP even know to look into the RSVP header to obtain this info?  The
optional IP router alert option is set in the IP header to inform IP that this
is a "special" packet and that the router that receives this packet must look
beyond the IP header.

Also, if a router supports RSVP-TE, it doesn't necessarily support all of RSVP;
for example, multicasting.

This is my take on it, but there are war wiser people than I that may have a
different view.

Dave

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 10:30:09 -0500

In message <[email-masked]>, She
> If there is something missed, please kindly point out. Thanks!

Most (or all) core routers that run RSVP-TE have per microflow RSVP
explicitly disabled for scaling reasons if it is implemented by the
router.  In many cases per micrflow RSVP is not implemented by the
router so it can't be turned on.

Curtis

ps- This is not a RSVP chat group.  This is a IETF WG mailing list
were we are supposed to be discussing work on the protocols, not
answering newbie queestions (an occasional question after researching
and not finding something is fine).  [This is not directed at
Gangxiang, since he was just answering someone's question.]