Subject: Difficulty about IPv4 Prefix in Explicit route Object in RSVP-TE

From: Gaitonde Anandprasanna <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 01:34:59 +0530 (IST)

I am sorry to repost this question but i am reallly interested in knowing
this . 

If the question i asked is correct then also let me know if in subsequent
drafts we can change the format of ERO subobject  (i.e. putting the IPv4 
address at the end of the object.)

Here is my previous mail :-

This question was asked by some person earlier but somehow i did not see
the answers in the mailing lists. If i have missed the answer then please
provide pointers to mail archives.

I wanted to know why the format of the IPv4 Prefix is that way:

 RSVP ERO subobject IPv4 address:-
 
 In RSVP-TE, the format of subobject 1: IPv4 address (4.4.1.1) is
 
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
           Type | Length | IPv4 address
-----------------------------------------------------------------
        IPv4 address | Prefix Length | Flags
------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Can somebody explain to me: What is the advantage to split the IPv4
address in two words? From the
implementation point of view, it should be much easy to put IPv4 address   
in a single word.

Thanx in advance

Pras

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 15:28:13 -0500

As I recall, the reason for this was that there was
an existing implementation that did it this way.  In
some models of the Universe, no further justification
is required. :-)

--
Eric Gray

---

From: Gaitonde Anandprasanna <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 01:59:29 +0530 (IST)

Thanks for replying.

   But i think if we have the IPV4 prefix at the end then it is much
easier for implementation.

So cant we change it now???

Pras

> some models of the Universe, no further justification

                     _____________________________                  
                   _ |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: Guangzhi Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 16:04:20 -0500

Hi, all:

I asked this question several times. Only Eric Gray gave one reason.

Thanks for the suggestion. Lots of implementations are going on. Can we change it
now? Our future life will be much easier.

Putting IPv4 and IPv6 at the end will make implementation easy and few bugoses.

How many people will support this ?? Thanks.

-- Guangzhi

---

From: Eric Osborne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:55:17 -0500

I can't speak from an implementation standpoint, but I see little
reason to change this.  It may make things a little easier to code,
but then you have to figure out how to be interoperable with all the
existing implementations that are deployed already.  It seems to me
that you'd have to find some way to be backward-compatabile, as well
as deal with all the implementations that would behave poorly
(possibly crash, etc) because they misinterpreted the new ERO format.

Again, I'm not one to make a decision one way or the other about
whether this gets done or not, but if I ran the world I'd have to come 
out against this idea.

eric