Dear WG and the Chairs,
Sorry for the delay in providing this status update.
The following is a status update for
draft-ietf-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-04.txt.
Current Status:
• A fresh was done on November 13, 2017
(draft-ietf-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-04.txt).
• Draft has been st
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element WG of the IETF.
Title : Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) Extensions for remote-initiated GMPLS LSP Setup
Autho
Just to refresh the draft,
Thanks.
Young
-Original Message-
From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-dra...@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 4:40 PM
To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-06
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element WG of the IETF.
Title : Path Computation Element (PCE) Protocol Extensions
for Stateful PCE Usage in GMPLS-controlled Networks
Autho
Hi Olivier,
I do not agree with what you mentioned.
The metric object is defined (but not limited to) to set a constraint on the
metric: what I should optimize for (IGP metric, TE metric, both…) and is there
a boundary that I should not exceed.
Nothing says that the constraint can be relaxed by
Hi WG,
I'm facing an interop issue between two PCEP implementations.
PCE from vendor1 sends the PCInitiate for an SRTE LSP using the PST=1 in the
SRP Object.
PCC from vendor2 handles it correctly and delegates the LSP to the PCE using
PST=1.
When the PCE sends a PCUpdate message, it does not set
Hello Stephane, all
In fact, these mechanism is already available in RFC 5440.
First, Metric Object has been defined with a B flag to indicate if this metric
(i.e. constraint) must be bound or not. See
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5440#section-7.8. Terminology is not exactly the
same, but, t
On everything 😊
From: stephane.litkow...@orange.com [mailto:stephane.litkow...@orange.com]
Sent: lunedì 13 novembre 2017 16:41
To: Daniele Ceccarelli ; pce@ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity: relaxing constraint
Hi Daniele,
Thanks for your feedback.
If we go to a generic
Hi Daniele,
Thanks for your feedback.
If we go to a generic mechanism, IMO, this should be addressed in a separate
document. In addition, we need a generic way for a PCC to tell the PCE that a
constraint is relaxable or strict. For diversity, we have a dedicated flag
within the DISJOINTNESS TLV
Hi Stephane,
definitely needed.
My opinion is that a way to say that a constraint was relaxed is very useful.
As you said there are different types of constraints that can be relaxed, e.g.
diversity or a TE bound.
I would make the TLV as generic as possible and maybe define multiple sub-TLV
(or
Hi WG,
In the latest version of draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity we added a new
TLV called RELAXED-CONSTRAINT-TLV to be used in LSP Object of a PCUpdate
message when the PCE relaxes the requested disjointness constraint. For
instance, if a PCC requests an SRLG disjoint path but the PCE cann
11 matches
Mail list logo
