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

Suresh Krishnan <> Wed, 15 June 2016 17:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9387A12DA6B; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 10:27:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.202
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pPytuSISp3gA; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 10:27:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A7FA12DA70; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 10:27:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c6180641-f796f6d000000e1e-80-57618fab4560
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 6B.B8.03614.BAF81675; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 19:26:03 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0294.000; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 13:27:00 -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 17:27:00 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <061401d1c6ff$691d67f0$3b5837d0$>
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+NgFupkkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZXLonVnd1f2K4wdXvChY/em4wW2xfNYHd YsaficwWTXN3MVm0/tjBYrFgzUxmBzaPJUt+Mnlcb7rK7rFi80rGAOYoLpuU1JzMstQifbsE royehlbGgjlcFcc2XWdtYPzA3sXIySEhYCLRs+IXI4QtJnHh3nq2LkYuDiGBo4wS33d3QznL GSU+XT/NClLFBtSxYednJhBbRMBb4vL29ywgRcwCzxglnvQ0gxUJC2RJ3F7+lxGiKFtiyukb ULaexOGWhSwgNouAqsS+i1eBBnFw8Ar4SsydnA0SFhIokli6+z1YCSPQRd9PrQHbxSwgLnHr yXwmiEsFJJbsOc8MYYtKvHz8jxXCVpL4+Hs+O0S9jsSC3Z/YIGxtiWULX4PV8woISpyc+YRl AqPoLCRjZyFpmYWkZRaSlgWMLKsYOUqLC3Jy040MNzECI+iYBJvjDsa9vZ6HGAU4GJV4eBXc EsKFWBPLiitzDzFKcDArifDG9yaGC/GmJFZWpRblxxeV5qQWH2KU5mBREufVf6kYLiSQnliS mp2aWpBaBJNl4uCUamCcwPZzyvUTdz9sM3pc+7LakzlUr+9N8UWrxX3/knbwb2q5vnjzpOqi iS/z63ckldw5anyzZrOJ7VVPW+lzT3l+2oVmiPRY8V61ci/zuhXxlXvH8nk1HGpt4sKWAetu Xj18PoQz6M6lux0H7moIlbD3+q6r3xN2cPmxtK1tpg2+OSnb/k1fY9+pxFKckWioxVxUnAgA 2uExWZwCAAA=
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 17:27:12 -0000

Hi Adrian,

On 06/15/2016 08:14 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Suresh,
> I think that if an RRO causes an RSVP-TE message to get full then it is a pretty
> grim situation.
> However, 3209 says...
>     If the newly added subobject causes the RRO to be too big to fit in a
>     Path (or Resv) message, the RRO object SHALL be dropped from the
>     message and message processing continues as normal. A PathErr (or
>     ResvErr) message SHOULD be sent back to the sender (or receiver).  An
>     error code of "Notify" and an error value of "RRO too large for MTU"
>     is used.  If the receiver receives such a ResvErr, it SHOULD send a
>     PathErr message with error code of "Notify" and an error value of
>     "RRO notification".
> Does that answer you?

Not exactly. I had followed the same reference to this text as well. My 
question was more about what happens to the message that gets forwarded (due 
to the message processing continuing as normal) on the next node that gets 
the message with the SRLG collection flag set but without the RRO. Does it 
add an RRO? Does it drop the message? ...