Please find more information on NFVRG including charter at -
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/wiki/nfvrg
Please find meeting location and agenda at -
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/wiki/nfvrg-ietf-90
Thanks,
Ramki on behalf of the co-chairs
Young,
One important advantage of publishing TE information directly onto PCE(s) is
the ability to do so in an incremental way. Consider, for example, a WDM LSP is
being set up. The only change that is happening on each of the involved links
is one lambda channel is changing its priority level
Hi Ramon,
Thanks for posting your comments and interest in this work. Please see in-line
for my response.
Regards,
Young
-Original Message-
From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ramon Casellas
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 1:31 AM
To: pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] New
Hi Igor,
Thanks for pointing out a good use-case for this work. I agree with that we
need a mechanism that can "incrementally" be updated to PCE. As you indicated,
the sensitivity of optical lambda channels with respect to timing has become
more important in path computation.
We will certainl
I will. As I mentioned I like very much how FORCES does that.
Igor
-Original Message-
From: Leeyoung [mailto:leeyo...@huawei.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 12:14 PM
To: Igor Bryskin; Ramon Casellas; pce@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Pce] New Version Notification for
draft-lee-pce-transpor
Hi,
While i find BGP-LS much more suitable for the distribution of TE data due to:
-BGP is well understood (operations/ troubleshooting, etc); sync, HA issues had
be solved
-Policies framework is comprehensive
-BGP infra in most cases is already in place
-RR construct provides hierarchy
-many mo
