Hi Dimitri,
> i'm not necessarily sure to understand the scenario 5.2 wrt to section
4.2
>
> are you saying that in order to manage inter-layer relationship there is
> a need to have a separate functional entity (in addition to the PCE) ?
"Need" may be a strong term for what we have in mind.
I think the text in 5.1 is clear. And most important is the sentence that
says...
To describe each
function clearly, VNTM is considered as a functional element in
this draft.
The implication is that this entity might not exist, and the function may
be distributed. However, since the function *does* exist, it is convenient
and clearer to describe it as a separate unit.
> i'm a bit confused here because the requirement document
>
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-req-00.txt
>
> does not consider such model -
The requirement document is titled "PCC-PCE Communication Requirements for
Inter-Layer Traffic Engineering" and so should not be expected to cover
this model unless it has an impact on the PCC-PCE communications.
> more generically i still believe this effort should concentrate on path
> computation (role of the PCE functionality)
Absolutely. However, it is surely important to show how PCE may be used to
compute paths in a multi-layer environment.
Cheers,
Adrian
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
