Subject: RSVP: Usage of FlowSpec

From: Rohit Chhapolia <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 17:29:48 -0500

RSVP Authors,

- In the rsvp-tunnel-04 draft (section 3.2), FlowSpec is defined
to be optional when the reservation style is FF but it is mandatory
for SE. Is this intentional? If yes, why so?

- In the native RSVP, let's assume that the style is SE and there are
multiple FilterSpecs in the RESV message. In this case, if FlowSpec is not
present before second FilterSpec, it should be assumed that it is same as
the FlowSpec for first FilterSpec. Since, FlowSpec is optional for mpls-rsvp,
this rule can cause a problem. The absence of FlowSpec can also be interpreted
as no FlowSpec is desired for this FilterSpec. There is some ambiguity here.

Rohit

-- 
Rohit Chhapolia
Ficon Technology, Inc.
mailto:[email-masked]
http://www.ficon-tech.com

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 17:53:31 -0500

>for SE. Is this intentional? If yes, why so?

I think the text is ambiguous.  There should be at least 1 FlowSpec for FF, 
see the format in rfc2205.  It's clear there, but obviously doesn't include 
labels.  It would be good for the text to be clear on this.

>- In the native RSVP,

what does that mean?

>  let's assume that the style is SE and there are

in the question too.  There's always 1 FlowSpec for SE.

Lou

---

From: Rohit Chhapolia <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 10:05:48 -0500

Lou,

> labels.  It would be good for the text to be clear on this.

The SenderTSpec is optional in the PATH message to allow creating LSP which
does not have any QoS associated with it. In this case, the RESV message
generated from egress node need not have any FlowSpec in it. If one must
be provided, what should be the contents of this object?

> what does that mean?

Just a colloquial for rfc2205.

> >  let's assume that the style is SE and there are
                                    ^^
                                    FF
> >the FlowSpec for first FilterSpec. Since, (if) FlowSpec is optional for mpls-rsvp,

Sorry, no issues for SE here. Please read this question with SE replaced by FF.

Rohit

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 10:40:23 -0500

At 10:05 AM 12/16/99 -0500, Rohit Chhapolia wrote:
>does not have any QoS associated with it.

Rohit,

This is a bug in the document.  Sender description should read:

       <sender descriptor> ::=  <SENDER_TEMPLATE>  <SENDER_TSPEC>
                                [ <ADSPEC> ]
                                [ <RECORD_ROUTE> ]

i.e., sender_tspec is always required.  If you don't want QoS, a 
Class-of-Service SENDER_TSPEC object with a CoS value of 0 should be used.

Thanks for pointing this out.

>  In this case, the RESV message

Class-of-Service FLOWSPEC object.

>Sorry, no issues for SE here. Please read this question with SE replaced 

With the above, I think this should no be clear.

Thanks,
Lou