Hello all,
I have a little comment/suggestion on PCEP regarding the request Id. In section 7.3.1 states that "The Request-ID-number value combined with the source IP address of the PCC and the PCE address uniquely identify the path computation request context". I agree with that, however there may be 2 requests with same request Id exchanged on the same session in the case of session between 2 PCEs. One Path Request being sent by PCE#1 to PCE#2 and the other one by PCE#2 to PCE#1. I don't think there is any problem with that but I am a little concerned about potential misinterpretation especially in PCErr and PCNotif message. If a PCNtf/PCErr message contains an RP object, nothing indicates if it is related to the Request from PCE#1 to PCE#2 or the one from PCE#2 to PCE#1, except the notification/error type and value. I guess this is why for instance for the "Pending Request cancelled" notification there are 2 values. One for PCC and one for the PCE. One of the problem, from an implementation perspective, is that we must first ready the Notification type/value in order to retrieve the correct PathRequest. Another problem is if an implementation does not recognize a given Error type/value, then it can't tell for sure which PathRequest it is related to. So it seems to me it would be more consistent to add a bit in the RP object (in the flag field) to indicate the "direction" of the PathRequest. For instance if the bit is set the Message that carry the RP object is related to the request sent by the destination of the message. Hence, an RP object would actually uniquely indentifies a PathRequest. Regards Fabien Verhaeghe
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
