Hi Julien,
In my understanding, PCEP sessions are always RSVP-TE capable.
One may not want any LSP to be signaled by RSVP-TE, in which case
PATH-SETUP-TYPE TLV would be encoded per LSP (in case of SR, this is
MUST anyways by SR I-D).
Also, isnt this, what we have always done with stateless to stateful PCE
or P2P to P2MP extensions and so on, should we consider path-setup-type
to be different?
Just some thoughts, lets see what the authors/WG think...
Regards,
Dhruv
On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Julien Meuric <julien.meu...@orange.com
<mailto:julien.meu...@orange.com>> wrote:
[Chair hat off]
Authors of draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type,
Reading the I-D, it looks to me that a (small) piece is missing. Let us
assume that I want my PCEP peers to advertise they are both SR-capable
and RSVP-TE-capable over a given session: the SR-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV is
defined in the SR I-D, but where is the RSVP-TE counterpart? I feel we
should add a 4-byte RSVP-TE-CAPABILITY TLV, with length = 0 and
recommended omission in case of RSVP-TE only.
My 50 cents,
Julien
May. 02, 2017 - Julien Meuric:
> Dear all,
>
> The aforementioned I-D has been stable for a while. This message
> initiates a 2-week WG Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type-04.
> Please send your comments to the PCE mailing list by May 15.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jon, JP & Julien
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org <mailto:Pce@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>
>
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org <mailto:Pce@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
