Subject: Re: RSVP rro QUESTIONS, can anyone help me for this?

From: "Hong Liao" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 12:38:25 -0400

David Charlap                                                                                    
                    <David.Charlap@ma        To:     [email-masked]                                                     
                    rconi.com>               cc:     (bcc: Hong Liao/Telcordia)                                      
                                             Subject:     Re: RSVP rro QUESTIONS, can anyone help me for this?       
                    10/26/01 11:50 AM                                                                                

Thanks for you reply.

I have one more question.

IngressA        ----- InterLSR  ---Egress
If I have ingress A, suppose it sends out the path msg with multiple RROs,
first rro is the IngressA's address, and then the second RRo just put any
other ip address there, then the InterLSR should only forward the first
RRO, which is the ingress A's address to the egress.  am I right?

Thanks again.

Julia

Hong Liao wrote:
>
> On section 4.4 Record route object:
> ..................
>
> [ If a path message contains multiple RROs, only the first RRO is
> maningful.  Subsequent RROs should be ignored and should not be
> propagated.
> Similary, if in a Resv MESSAGE MULIPLE RROs are encountered
> following a FILTER_SPEC before another Filter is encountered, only
> the first RRO is meaningful.  Subsequent RROs should be ignored and
> SHOULD NOT be propagated

Does this really require any further explanation?

> So here the multiple RROs, the order should be as is: 1st RRO is 1st,
> and 2nd RRO is 2nd,RRO as a whole.

Of course.  The first one appearing in the message is first.  It would
take an incredible twist of understanding to assume that the draft means
"last" when it says "first".

> As I observed, the one vendor will forward the second RRO if there
> are 2 RROs object existing in the path msg or resv msg.

Then this vendor has a broken implementation.  Have you informed them of
their bug?  They should fix it.

-- David

---

From: David Charlap <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 13:22:13 -0400

Hong Liao wrote:
> If I have ingress A, suppose it sends out the path msg with multiple
> RROs, first rro is the IngressA's address, and then the second RRo
> just put any other ip address there, then the InterLSR should only
> forward the first RRO, which is the ingress A's address to the
> egress.  am I right?

Correct.  InterLSR should behave as if the second RRO doesn't exist at
all.

Depending on its implementation, InterLSR might not parse the second RRO
object out of the packet at all.

-- David