Hi,
I support the idea of selecting PCEP as an SDN controller protocol, but did
not support the idea that let PCEP do all the work that IGP/BGP has
accomplished.
>From the viewpoint of network operator, we think SDN can introduce some
flexibility/controllability to our network and we think the
Hello,
On 20/07/17 18:46, Ramon Casellas wrote:
> We have implemented BGP-LS but I see no reason why PCEP cannot be
> extended for the same (PCEP-LS) being almost functionally equivalent.
With my stateful-pcep co-author hat on, I have to say this boils down to
what is really needed at the protoco
Hi,
Having arrived to the PCEverse later than most of you, I must say my impression
is exactly the same. I remember asking my colleagues who were already involved
why we were not using the term SDN when it became common and, in fact,
referencing our PCE implementation in the list of our SDN pro
Hi,
Ramon's last line for me is the core of the argument.
> IMHO, with the stateful PCE work we already went beyond the basic
> path computation service.
You might recall (if you are old and carry a grudge) that I was not an
enthusiast for stateful active PCE (i.e., PCInitiate), but like the
On 7/20/2017 5:22 PM, Jonathan Hardwick wrote:
1.We have not had an explicit discussion in the PCE WG about whether
we want to take PCEP in this direction. We have had a few lively
debates on specific cases, like PCEP-LS, but those cases represent the
“thin end of the wedge”. If we start do
Dear PCE WG
The purpose of this email is to initiate a discussion about whether we want to
extend PCEP to allow it to replace the functions that are traditionally
provided by the routing and signalling protocols.
Originally, PCEP was designed with the goal of providing a distributed path
compu
Hi Dieter,
I got it. We will clearly state what a frequency slot really means in the
document.
Thanks
Young
From: Dieter Beller [mailto:dieter.bel...@nokia.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 12:23 PM
To: Leeyoung ; Zhenghaomian ;
Julien Meuric ; pce@ietf.org;
draft-lee-pce-flexible-g...@ietf.
Hi Young,
On 20.07.2017 11:41, Leeyoung wrote:
Hi
Dieter,
I
agree. In this draft, we refer to
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-09#section-4.1.1
Hi Dieter,
I agree. In this draft, we refer to
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext-09#section-4.1.1
for the available spectrum encoding. Is this what you are referring to, or
more than that?
Thanks.
Young
From: Dieter Beller [mailto:dieter.bel...@nokia.com]
Sen
Hi all,
the description of the available spectrum in
draft-lee-pce-flexible-grid should in my opinion be consistent
with the available spectrum
description in draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-ospf-ext. Please
note that the available spectrum is advertis
Hi WG,
The draft minutes for the PCE WG session are uploaded.
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/99/minutes/minutes-99-pce-00.txt
Please reply, if there any corrections.
Thanks to all, who contributed on etherpad.
Thanks!
Dhruv
___
Pce mailing list
Pce
Hi, Julien and Young,
I fully agree on that we should try our best on reusing the existing
object/TLVs. FYI, when we are working on GMPLS extensions from fixed-grid
(WSON) to flexi-grid, we have some TLVs in parallel (switching types) for
fixed/flexi-grid.
I assume this is exactly what we ar
Hi Julien,
I agree. A New flag on the object header (WA Object, I assume that is what you
are pointing to) where we have a flag to indicate if this is fixed (WSON) or
flexi-grid is reasonable instead of creating a new object for a new Spectrum
Assignment Object.
TLVs require a bit different en
Hi,
The discussion during the meeting suggests that I need to clarify my
comment about draft-lee-pce-flexible-grid.
This I-D is very similar to draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext, which addresses
the exact same problem over a slightly different WDM label space
(running a side-by-side diff between them a
14 matches
Mail list logo
