Subject: MPLS-TE SESSION_ATTRIBUTE question

From: Paul Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 19:26:51 +0100

Resent in plain text format this time... My apologies, my first posting
to this mail list.

In section 4.7.4 of the RSVP-TE draft, it states (in the final paragraph
of the section): 

   "All RSVP routers, whether they support the SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object 
   or not, SHALL forward the object unmodified.  The presence of non- 
   RSVP routers anywhere between senders and receivers has no impact on 
   this object." 

This implies that non-RSVP routers should pass-through the PATH message.
However, section 4.2.5 states: 

   "RSVP is designed to cope gracefully with non-RSVP routers anywhere 
   between senders and receivers. However, obviously, non-RSVP routers 
   cannot convey labels via RSVP. This means that if a router has a 
   neighbor that is known to not be RSVP capable, the router MUST NOT 
   advertise the LABEL_REQUEST object when sending messages that pass 
   through the non-RSVP routers.  The router SHOULD send a PathErr back 
   to the sender, with the error code "Routing problem" and the error 
   value "MPLS being negotiated, but a non-RSVP capable router stands in 
   the path." 

Is there a contradiction between these two statements? I suppose the
second statement in the first quoted paragraph above should simply be
removed.
Or is there something I missed? 

Also, an editorial comment concerning Section 4.7.4. The third-last
paragraph is incomplete. 

Paul 

-- 
Paul Moore
Alcatel Bell
+32 3 450 3536
[email-masked]