Hi, Ramon, Thank you for pointing the RFC6007 to me. I almost forgot this draft.
Yeah, you are right. This requirement can be satisfied by two approaches. One is the 2-step approach which can be addressed by IRO/XRO, and the other is the "D flag" in SVEC object in the H-PCE scenario according to your mail. Just from my opinion, the new flag indicating "domain diverse" in SVEC object is needed in PCEP protocol. Thanks Qilei Wang Ramon Casellas <ramon.casel...@cttc.es> 发件人: pce-boun...@ietf.org 2013-09-13 12:48 收件人 pce@ietf.org, 抄送 主题 Re: [Pce] A comment regarding domain diversity in draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions Just from my understanding, maybe this requirement can be resolved by extending the PCEP object to indicate "domain-diverse" requirement when PCE computes a pair of dependent path at the same time. When PCC sends path request to child PCE, this requirement can be indicated in the path request message, and child PCE can forward this requirement indication to the parent PCE. Parent PCE has the topology information of domains, so it is able to compute two domain-diverse paths. Hi Qilei, all Would, for example, a new bit in the SVEC saying "domain diverse" fulfill such requirement? I was reading http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6007 sect 5.3 that discusses this. The two step can be addressed by IRO/XRO and the common H-PCE case could use a D flag. Domain sub-objects are not domain-specific 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Reserved | Flags |D|S|N|L| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Request-ID-number #1 | // // | Request-ID-number #M | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Thoughts? thanks, R. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
