Hi Girish,
Due to the very different levels of maturity between stateful-pce and
MBB I-Ds, we do not see them merging. MBB I-D was very briefly discussed
on the list a while ago, we do not know what the plans of the authors are...
Regards,
Julien
Oct. 12, 2015 - girish...@gmail.com:
piggy backing on Dhruv email ...
During PCUpdate for SR LSP - MBB process mentioned in
draft-tanaka-pce-stateful-pce-mbb applicable? The MBB draft has
expired, will it be incorporated in stateful-pce draft?
Thanks,
Girish
On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dh...@huawei.com
<mailto:dhruv.dh...@huawei.com>> wrote:
Hi Authors,
In the stateful PCE draft [1], it says –
The LSP Identifiers TLV MUST be included in the LSP object in PCRpt
messages for RSVP-signaled LSPs.
The SR draft [2] did not mention anything about LSP Identifier TLV.
And in implementations that I am aware of, SR-TE LSP still uses
the LSP-Identifier TLV. Is that correct? (I personally think so!!)
If yes, do you think there is a need to update –
-[1] to say all LSPs (and not just RSVP-signaled).
-Or [2] to say that LSP-Identifier TLV are also applicable to SR
and MUST be included.
Thanks!
Dhruv
[1]
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-11#section-7.3.1
[2] http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing/
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org <mailto:Pce@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________
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
