Subject: Re: psb

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 12:35:00 -0700

*> From [email-masked] Sat Sep 11 04:02:34 1999
  *> From: Pradeep Padhmanabhan <[email-masked]>
  *> To: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>
  *> Subject: psb
  *> Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 14:03:10 +0530
  *> MIME-Version: 1.0
  *> Content-Type  *> :   *> text/plain  *> ;   *> charset="us-ascii"  *> 
  *> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
  *> Sender: [email-masked]
  *> Precedence: bulk
  *> Content-Length: 199
  *> X-Lines: 9
  *> 
  *> 
  *> hi 
  *>   is it required to maintain a path state block (psb) in the 
  *>   sender's that originate the path message
  *>     similarly in the receivers the corresponding RSB
  *>  
  *>       thanking you
  *> 			pradeep 
  *>   
  *> 
Pradeep,

The first-level answer to your question is necessarily "no",
because the RSVP protocol places no requirements on implementations.
The PSB is one approach to implementation.

When a local application craates an RSVP sender through the API,
this causes Path messages to be sent periodically.  I would call this
path state in the sending node, whether or not it is recorded in a
"PSB".  An analogous argument holds for the receiver and reservation
state.

Another question you could ask is whether there is actually a reservation
associated with reservation state in the receiver.  It was always
envisioned that an end system OS would need to reserve local resources --
e.g., CPU and buffers -- for a realtime stream.  The reservation state
in the receiver might be used for this purpose.  (I don't know if
any OSs have actually implemented local CPU scheduling for processing
realtime streams).

Bob Braden