JP,
Absolutely agree to this point, neither stateful PCE nor any other technology
is a silver bullet :) There are scenarios where it fits better and others
where existing solutions are just as good. Following your guidance at the
previous IETF, the authors revised the draft while paying attent
The updated Link:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-george-mpls-ipv6-only-gap/?include_text=1
Dhruv
-- Forwarded message --
From: Dhruv Dhody
Date: Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 10:10 PM
Subject: Fwd: IPv6-only MPLS gap analysis
To: "pce@ietf.org"
Cc: draft-george-mpls-ipv6-only-...@t
Adding PCE WG, this may interest some of you...
Apologies, if you received multiple copies :)
Regards,
Dhruv
-- Forwarded message --
From: George, Wes
Date: Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 7:12 PM
Subject: IPv6-only MPLS gap analysis
To: "m...@ietf.org"
Cc: "l2...@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-l
We just need to be careful not to make well balanced showing the pros and cons
since this cannot be seen as the magic solution to all problems.
On Jun 26, 2013, at 7:17 PM, Leeyoung wrote:
Hi,
I support the idea of the need for Stateful PCE applicability. As stated in the
latest draft, this do
