Darek
Skalecki
Optical Networks
Nortel
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: October 21, 2005 1:02 PM
To: Skalecki, Darek [CAR:QT32:EXCH]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Pce] Selecting a PCE Communication Protocol - Pulling thethreadstogetherhi darek -
would it be possible to know what are the specific reasons (if any) that led you to this selection ?
i think this may help debate during next meeting
thanks,
- dimitri.
"Darek Skalecki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
10/21/2005 09:43 AST
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
bcc:
Subject: RE: [Pce] Selecting a PCE Communication Protocol - Pulling thethreadstogetherGood day,
Just thought I would throw in my 2c. All considered, for our GMPLS solution we are also looking at PCEP, as opposed to the other alternatives, as a PCE communication protocol. While on the subject, I hope the authors of PCEP will consider computation of GMPLS paths, such as light paths, in the near future. Further extensions will be required for that purpose. For example, expressing bandwidth in bytes per second will not suffice for light paths.
Thanks,
Darek
Darek Skalecki
Optical Networks
Nortel
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
