[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
WG last calls - exclude route ID
Here are a few comments on this ID. Sorry for the delay.
Also, in case some of these comments are a repetition, please ignore
To convey these constructs within the signaling protocol, a new
RSVP object and a new ERO subobject are introcuded respectively.
The number of introduced exlicit nodes or abstract nodes with
the L flag set to "avoid" should be minimised.
Each EXRS may carry multiple exclusions. The exclusion is encoded
exactly as for XRO subobjects and prefixed by an additional Type and
<AA> Did you mean, there can be multiple EXRS per ERO, which I see or
multiple exclusions per EXRS ?
From the format of the EXRS it looks like one exclusion per EXRS.
Did I miss something ?
Thus, an EXRO subobject for an IP hop might look as follows:
<AA> EXRS ? Also the S in EXRS already means sub-object, so you could get
rid of sub-object following EXRS.
The subobjects in the ERO and EXRS SHOULD not contradict each other.
If they do contradict, the subobjects with the L bit not set, strict
or MUST be excluded, respectively, in the ERO or XRO MUST take pre-
cedence. If there is still a conflict, the subobjects in the ERO
MUST take precedence.
<AA> You may want to state explicitly what you mean by contradict for
EXRS. Is the scope of contradiction just the previous and next ERO
If the presence of EXRO Subobjects precludes further forwarding of
the Path message, the node should return a PathErr with the error
code "Routing Problem" and error value of "Route blocked by Exclude
<AA> With respect to EXRS, it might be useful to clarify what does EXRS
provide that cannot be achieved by XRO. Basically give some hints as to
where EXRS may be useful versus XRO. Also, can there be conflicts between
EXRS and XRO ? If yes, then how is that dealt with ?
8) Section 6
The IPv6 Prefix subobject MUST be supported with a prefix
length of 128, and an attriubute value of "interface" and