Re: [Pce] A comment regarding domain diversity in draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions

2013-09-13 Thread Qin Wu
Sounds reasonable, I am wondering whether it is sufficient for just defining one new 'D' flag in the SVEC object? Why 'D' flag was not defined when RFC5440 was documented. How do I know computed paths don't have any transit domains in common. Domain diversity is more complicated when computed pat

Re: [Pce] A comment regarding domain diversity in draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions

2013-09-13 Thread wang . qilei
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

Re: [Pce] A comment regarding domain diversity in draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions

2013-09-13 Thread Qin Wu
Hi, Qilei: For domain diversity, when path computation traverses multiple domains including one ingress domain, multiple transit domains, one egress domain, there are several cases: a. Computation path share none of these domains. b. Computation path only shares both ingress domain

Re: [Pce] A comment regarding domain diversity in draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions

2013-09-13 Thread Ramon Casellas
Qin, Please see in-line tagged with Ramon> El 13/09/2013 9:22, Qin Wu escribió: Sounds reasonable, I am wondering whether it is sufficient for just defining one new 'D' flag in the SVEC object? Why 'D' flag was not defined when RFC5440 was documented. How do I know computed paths don't hav

Re: [Pce] A comment regarding domain diversity in draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions

2013-09-13 Thread Qin Wu
Very good points and clarifications. :-) Regarding "are border nodes allowed", I think if inter-domain communication is required, the border node should allow, shouldn't it? Also I am wondering whether this requirement is only applied to H-PCE case? H-PCE could be a typical use case. However I b

Re: [Pce] A comment regarding domain diversity in draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions

2013-09-13 Thread wang . qilei
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

Re: [Pce] A comment regarding domain diversity in draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions

2013-09-13 Thread Qin Wu
Qilei: I think (b) more makes sense. Maybe we further requires both egress node and ingress node belong to multiple domains. Regards! -Qin From: wang.qi...@zte.com.cn [mailto:wang.qi...@zte.com.cn] Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 4:25 PM To: Qin Wu; Ramon Casellas Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: RE: [