Subject: RE: RSVP-TE: ERO question

From: Marc Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 12:34:32 -0700

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 11:29 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RSVP-TE: ERO question

> I haven't seen reference to the following in any archives, so I hope
someone
> can shed some light on this for me.

> Section 3.1.5 of RFC2205 (RSVP V1) stipulates the following: "A PathTear
> message must be routed exactly like the corresponding Path message."

> Given that the RSVP-TE draft defines the EXPLICT_ROUTE object (ERO) that
can
> effectively circumvent the active route from any given node to the session
> DestAddress and, moreover, that the ERO is applicable to the Path message
> exclusively (see section 3 of the RSVP-TE draft), it follows that, if an
ERO
> is employed, a PathTear message may follow a different path than the
> corresponding Path message.
> Is this not a conflict?

Nope, it simply means you have to route the PATH TEAR explicitly, just like
you did the original PATH message.  A piece of cake, as you should have
previously recorded the outgoing interface in the path state block (or
session control block).