Adrian - At this point, the summary and conclusion you have below is the only path forward.
-DWard On 8/16/07 4:30 AM, "Adrian Farrel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>> - still unclear to me whether isis pce disc. will or not use a >>>>>> separate inst. (cf. gen-app discussion at isis working group) >>>>> >>>>> ISIS pce disc relies on procedures defined in 4971. >>>>> This is a deployment issue to use same or separate instances. >>>> >>>> do you assume that you would leave such choice possible ? i >>>> was left with the impression after last isis mtg discussion >>>> that there is a real incentive for making this a recommended >>>> behavior >>> >>> Just to avoid confusion: the PCED is being carried within the ISIS >>> Router Capability TLV, the processing of which is defined in RFC4971. >> >> indeed, i am not referring to 4971 at such, i am referring to the >> fact that if exchanging non-routing info w/ is-is result in recommending >> separated instance then the ISIS PCE disc. w-g doc becomes a prime >> candidate for such recommendation. just a matter of consistency. > > My understanding of the discussion in the ISIS working group is that: > - They are tending towards believing that there should be a separation > between > flooding of IP link-state information and *all* other information > - They think that such a separation might reasonably be handled by using > multiple (greater than one) instances of ISIS > - They have not yet reached a conclusion as to whether existing extensions > fall into this category, but there was building opinion that TE > advertisements > might be strong candidates for off-loading to a second instance > - The Router Capability TLV would also be up for consideration > > No slides for this topic from the ISIS working group in Chicago seem to have > been posted yet. > > The most recent version of the relevant I-D appears to be > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ginsberg-isis-genapp-01.txt > although I know Les was planning some updates as a result of the Chicago > meeting. > > It seems to me that: > 1. The ISIS working group is not going to reach a conclusion on this > in a hurry. > 2. When they do reach a conclusion we MUST fall in with it. > 3. In the mean time, just as TE and Router Caps are currently > carried in a single instance, the PCE discovery will be so > carried. > 4. You should all contribute to this discussion on the ISIS mailing list. > > Cheers, > Adrian _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
