That was my question too
On Jul 26, 2011, at 1:55 PM, Fatai Zhang wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> RFC5392 is a kind of mechamism and it is already there.
>
> Why we need to define another solution based on some nonexistent assumption?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Fatai
>
> Thanks
> - Original Mess
El 25/07/2011 19:20, JP Vasseur escribió:
So let the WG decide which one of the methods is most appropriate
Thanks.
Dear PCErs,
Just my (subjective) opinion:
IIUC, the motivation behind this draft is the lack of upstream TE
attributes in inter-AS links (due to the lack of proxy), which is
Hi all,
RFC5392 is a kind of mechamism and it is already there.
Why we need to define another solution based on some nonexistent assumption?
Fatai
Thanks
- Original Message -
From: JP Vasseur
To: fu.xi...@zte.com.cn
Cc: pce-boun...@ietf.org ; pce@ietf.org ; 王磊
Sent:
Hi Xuerong and PCEers
I think the idea of your draft is an interesting and important issue for
current networks. However, there may be a question that you have to clarify.
If the extended BRPC procedure is conducted for Inter-AS bidirectional path
computation, the result of the computation may
