Re: [Teas] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-06: (with DISCUSS)

Suresh Krishnan <> Wed, 15 June 2016 20:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0122112DB4C; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 13:05:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5sEprGg4hEIg; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 13:05:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB1C312DB3C; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 13:05:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c618062d-f79886d000002334-3b-5761ab7bd04e
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 59.2E.09012.B7BA1675; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:24:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0294.000; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 16:05:44 -0400
From: Suresh Krishnan <>
To: "" <>, 'The IESG' <>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-06: (with DISCUSS)
Thread-Index: AQHRxsvlrAOdNpUU/USi67M4xoDicA==
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 20:05:44 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <061401d1c6ff$691d67f0$3b5837d0$> <> <06e801d1c730$76b2ec10$6418c430$>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFupikeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZXLonQbd6dWK4QUOrssWPnhvMFttXTWC3 mPFnIrNF09xdTBatP3awWCxYM5PZgc1jyZKfTB7Xm66ye6zYvJIxgDmKyyYlNSezLLVI3y6B K+Pbl/eMBS0cFbPOdTA1MK5j62Lk5JAQMJE48/s+K4QtJnHh3nqwuJDAUUaJe8v8uxi5gOzl jBJ9i/sZQRJsQA0bdn5mArFFBLwlLm9/zwJSxCzwjFHiSU8z2CRhgSyJ28v/MkIUZUtMOX0D ytaTONyykAXEZhFQlejsnMsOYvMK+EqcaJjOArHtOaPE90sdYGcwAp30/dQasG3MAuISt57M Z4I4VUBiyZ7zzBC2qMTLx/+gXlCSmPP6GjNEvY7Egt2f2CBsbYllC18zQywTlDg58wnLBEbR WUjGzkLSMgtJyywkLQsYWVYxcpQWF+TkphsZbGIExtAxCTbdHYz3p3seYhTgYFTi4VVwSwgX Yk0sK67MPcQowcGsJML7dVNiuBBvSmJlVWpRfnxRaU5q8SFGaQ4WJXFesUeK4UIC6Yklqdmp qQWpRTBZJg5OqQbGmY2B0csFwn83pUWfyL+y+uDc1zrKwBQQ2V9lm/NNOJPFpOrceQfOfbYi Zt+zym+8NLVgXjFNNuPa98A2y6msOY+6Xq5vfTuxb4XwnZmLhPoM43YsKXP88kT94Fer6g37 btvOmHezYsm+vZ82FEzQ2NA1e/omLvv5Cvu/rj2XlvoqXdVi0VRNJZbijERDLeai4kQAZZLM hp0CAAA=
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-te-srlg-collect-06: (with DISCUSS)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 20:05:47 -0000

Hi Adrian,

On 06/15/2016 02:05 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Theoretically, only the end-points add RROs. Once an RRO is stripped it will not
> be added back in (in practice, some domain boundaries might add RROs back in).
> The para after the quoted one says that further refreshes should entirely remove
> the RRO, but what is more likely to happen is that an alarm will be raised and
> the LSP will be torn down. The operator will then go and look to see why his
> signaling message grew so unbelievably large and will either fix the topology
> bug, turn off some features, or shout at the vendor.

Makes sense. Since there is a detailed specification in the draft of what 
happens when the RRO gets too big it would have made sense to add something 
like your explanation for further processing on the next node. I am not going 
to insist on doing so and will move the text to a comment.