yes/support
Thanks
Qilei
Julien Meuric
发件人: "Pce"
2015-11-04 08:36
收件人
"pce@ietf.org" ,
抄送
主题
[Pce] Poll on Adoption of draft-minei-pce-association-group-03
Dear all,
Following our discussion during the WG meeting yesterday, do you support
the adoption of draft-minei-pce-assoc
yes/support
This draft do answer many quesitons.
Thanks
Qilei Wang
Julien Meuric
发件人: "Pce"
2014/04/09 16:22
收件人
"pce@ietf.org"
抄送
主题
[Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-questions-04
Hi all.
This message ignites a PCE WG last call on draft-ietf-pce-questions-04.
It will end o
Hi, Xian,
Do you mean the scenario that domain diversity can be used in?
I can understand domain diversity can facilitate path diversity, and I
also agree RFC5440 supports path diversity, but I don't know how RFC5440
could support domain diversity? That's what I am confused with. I'm not
sure
Hi, Xian,
Thanks, please see my reply in-line.
Qilei Wang
"Zhangxian (Xian)"
2013-09-16 15:45
收件人
"wang.qi...@zte.com.cn" , Ramon Casellas
,
抄送
"pce@ietf.org"
主题
RE: [Pce] A comment regarding domain diversity in
draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions
Hi, Qilei, Ramon and all,
Hi, Qin:
I guess the sentences in section 1.3.2.2 of RFC6805 can answer you
question, I cite them here,
"
A pair of paths are domain-diverse if they do not transit any of the
same domains. A pair of paths that share a common ingress and egress
are domain-diverse if they only share the sam
Hi, Ramon,
Thank you for pointing the RFC6007 to me. I almost forgot this draft.
Yeah, you are right. This requirement can be satisfied by two approaches.
One is the 2-step approach which can be addressed by IRO/XRO, and the
other is the "D flag" in SVEC object in the H-PCE scenario according t
Hi, authors,
Section 1.3.2.2 of RFC6805 describes a new requirement domain diversity in
hierarchy PCE scenario. But the extension draft do not address any detail
about this requirement currently. According to the definition in RFC6805,
domain diversity is referred to as that a pair of paths do
Hi, Ramon, Cyril & all,
I second this solution.
Defining new C-type can also keep the current protocol and implementation
untouched. But we need to loose the restriction of bandwidth object in
RFC5440 first.
Besides, IMHO, the solution allowing TLVs can better help the path
computation proces
