Hi Adrian, > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Adrian Farrel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Envoyé : vendredi 14 juillet 2006 18:14 > À : LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Objet : Re: [Pce] P & I flags > > >> o) on the I flag issue is identical why include an object > which has > >> not considered during computation ? > > > > I don't catch your point, the PCC may want to know the constraints > > that were not taken into account during path computation, > this sounds > > quite important isn'it? > > > >> there are so > >> many things that the PCE has not taken into account during > >> computation so why bother ? > > > > Hum I don't follow you here "there are so many things...", > What do you > > mean? > > I think the disconnect is that the I flag is only used in constraints > *returned* to the PCC. I.e. in constraints that formed part > of the original request, but were ignored.
Yes, of course and then what is the point? > There is no > requirement (or desire?) for the PCE to randomly report other > things it did not take into account (such as weather, > shoe-size of operator, etc.) Hum, who knows...One may want a cold path (as transmission may become bad when temperature goes beyond a threshold), the temperature may be used as a link METRIC and the PCE may access a wheather server to compute the path :-)) Regards, JL > > Adrian > > > _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
