Subject: ERO question in RSVP-TE

From: David Charlap <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 16:02:03 -0500

I've a question regarding explicit route objects (EROs) in RSVP-TE.

RFC 3209 says (section 4.3):

	If a Path message contains multiple EXPLICIT_ROUTE objects,
	only the first object is meaningful.  Subsequent
	EXPLICIT_ROUTE objects MAY be ignored and SHOULD NOT be
	propagated.

I'm wondering about one specific possible caveat here.  What if there
are two ERO objects, and the first is malformed in a way that would
cause it to be ignored (for instance, it contains no subobjects). 
Should the second ERO then be used?  Or should the second one still be
ignored, even though the first ERO is meaningless?

I'm inclined to believe that the second ERO should still be ignored, but
I'd appreciate some confirmation from others who are working on the
protocol.

-- David

---

From: Bora Akyol <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 16:28:17 -0800

I don't see any reason other than bugs to generate such an object stream. 
Safe to ignore both probably.

Bora