All,
As elaborated in [1] (see option c)
1. _Object Ordering_
Unfortunately RFC5440 does not mention anything regarding sub-object
ordering, it only says "to specify that the computed path MUST traverse
a set of specified network elements" and does not include some text in
the spirit of "Objects within an IRO object MUST appear in
theresultingERO in the same order that they appear in the IRO". Unless I
ammistaken,this means that, at least in theory, we should not make
assumptionswhetherthe sub-objects included in the IRO shall appear in
the resultingERO in the
same relative ordering. An implementation is free to iterate the IRO
subobjects, mark the nodes and links that appear in the IRO and execute
some kind of traveling salesman problem that makes sure that the path
travereses the referred elements, albeit the order is not guaranteed.
- The relative object ordering, however, is fundamental in the domain
sequence. This can be made explicit in the new type, i.e. we canclearly
define new procedures and restrictions for a new object type.
[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pce/current/msg02580.html
--
Ramon Casellas, Ph.D. -- Senior Research Associate -- Networks Division
Optical Networks and Systems Department -- http://wikiona.cttc.es
CTTC - Centre Tecnològic de Telecomunicacions de Catalunya
Parc Mediterrani de la Tecnologia (PMT) - Edifici B4
Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss, 7 - 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona) - Spain
Tel.: +34 93 645 29 00 ext 2168-- Fax. +34 93 645 29 01
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
