adrian,
Adrian Farrel wrote:
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.
in such a case i call for asking the specifics being first worked out in
CCAMP concerning the aspects not related to path computation
it looks like this document put the car before the horses in some sense
thanks,
- dimitri,
Cheers,
Adrian
.
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
