Hi Joel, hi Dhruv,
Focusing on the Area ID issue, I'd support adding some text along with
Dhruv's proposal, but stricter (not just deferring to "implementation's
feeling"). I.e., Area IDs are AS-specific and mustn't cross AS borders;
AS-local Area IDs may be used inside an AS (without restricting to the
origin AS).
See you in Yokohama,
Julien
Oct. 30, 2015 - jmh.dir...@joelhalpern.com:
Given that Exclude Route Objects are not interleaved with
include Objects, is there a restriction that Area IDs may only be
excluded from paths within a single AS?
[Dhruv]: I guess this would depend on the PCE behavior during inter-AS
path computation i.e. PCEmay feel the area id subobjectis irreleventand
strips from the XRO before sending the request to another PCE
or it might keep it intact.
This would be in s
pi
ritof RFC 4874 where
-
The number of subobjects to be avoided, specified in the
signaled XRO, may be constant throughout the whole path setup, or the
subobjects to be avoided may be removed from the XRO as they become
irrelevant in the subsequent hops of the path setup.
We can always
use
EXRS in IRO specify the intentions much more clearly.
If you agree, we can work on some text to add.
I still can not see how the Excluded Route Object with an Area ID will
work. How will a PCE which receives such a request know what AS it
applies to? It works fine if the whole path is within one AS. But if
this is a multi-AS request, the AS elements, if present at all, are in
the IRO.
The most obvious approach would be to declare that the PCE shall assume
that all Area ID exclusions apply to the origin AS.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
