Peng,I think this is a path computation/engineering question more than one of signaling semantics. The only *required* restriction/implication on EROs is already listed in the draft, namely:
The first subobject MUST indicate the node that is to originate the recovery LSP, i.e. the segment branch node. The address used SHOULD also be listed in the ERO or another SERO.other than that, there's no required change, i.e., as always it's up to the TE application (and the PCE function) to decide which parts of the ERO should be loose or strict.
From the practical application standpoint, I certainly see the value in the use of some strict subobjects.
Lou At 02:23 PM 10/17/2006, Peng He wrote:
Hello Lou, I am reading your draft on segment recovery. I wonder if the ERO (of the working LSP) in the PATH message must be strict? Thanks. Regards, Peng