Dear All,
I've read the draft and support its adoption by the PCE WG. A couple notes
for future consideration:
- Adrian earlier noted the number of names on the front page. Although
the five is not a hard stop, it seems like conforming to the
recommendation could be a wise approach.
-
ible to keep the bSPL at the bottom. So the transit nodes do
> not aware.
>
> My suggestion is to exclude the MPLS encapsulation in this draft until we
> have a clear NMA solution.
>
> Best,
>
> Tianran
>
> *From:* Greg Mirsky [mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com]
> *Sent
that it
> does not understand.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Giuseppe
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Greg Mirsky
> *Sent:* Monday, July 4, 2022 6:40 PM
> *To:* Giuseppe Fioccola
> *Cc:* wang...@chinatelecom.cn; Dhruv Dhody ;
> pce@ietf.org; draft-chen-pce-pcep-i..
oking at
> draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam, it is also mentioned that the intermediate node
> that is not capable of supporting the IOAM functions can simply skip the
> IOAM processing.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Giuseppe
>
>
>
> *From:* Greg Mirsky
> *Sent:* Sat
Hi Giuseppe,
I have a question about your statement:
But if nodes on the path do not support some capabilities, it is not a big
issue. Indeed, both Alternate Marking and IOAM documents specify that nodes
that do not support a specific functionality will forward the packet
without any changes to
Dear All,
I've read the draft and support it being adopted by the PCE WG. The draft
provides an elegant future-proof solution to the real problem. I have one
suggestion for a future revision of this document. You've already
considered backward compatibility between implementations that support the
Dear All,
I've read the draft and support its adoption.
Regards,
Greg
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 2:12 AM wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It is time to share your thoughts about draft-li-pce-sr-bidir-path-06.
> Do you believe the I-D is a right foundation for a PCE WG item? Please
> use the PCE mailing list
Hi Dhruv, Julien, et al.,
yes/support
I've read the draft and believe it is ready to be adopted by the PCE WG.
The draft proposes a much-needed solution to OAM in SR-MPLS.
Regards,
Greg
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 9:21 AM wrote:
> Hi PCE WG,
>
> In our adoption poll queue,
Dear All,
yes/support with comments:
- since the draft does not discuss actual control of the protection
switchover but introduces objects related to Path Protection Association
Group I encourage authors to consider reflecting that in the title of the
document;
- Path Protection
at this draft is not about measurements, but how
> to use delay/delay-variation as constraints/criteria and use the date in
> TEDB for calculating a suitable E2E path (and thus before the path is setup
> and data flowing). I personally don’t see the benefit in changing format
> now.
>
>
Dear All,
delay and delay variation are usually calculated using timestamps collected
at two endpoints of the path. AFAIK, there are two formats, NTP and
IEEE-1558v1/v2, being used in OAM protocols to measure Latency/Jitter with
different precision determined by length of fractional seconds field.
Support
Regards,
Greg
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 12:06 PM, JP Vasseur (jvasseur) jvass...@cisco.com
wrote:
Dear WG,
We had several discussions showing a good consensus adopting
draft-sivabalan-pce-segment-routing-03.txt and this work
has considerably progressed in other WG.
Are you in favor
not assume that a single p2p can
be used to provide protection for local link failure case.”
Quintin
--
*From:* Greg Mirsky [mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 05, 2010 6:20 PM
*To:* JP Vasseur
*Cc:* Quintin Zhao; pce@ietf.org
*Subject:* Re
Hi Quintin and JP,
in regard to applicability of p2p FRR protection of links of p2mp LSP I
agree with JP that such applicability is questionable and very much depends
on network topology, its meshiness. I think that because we can not
guarantee that the immediate LSR will be the merging point of
Dear Greg,
without getting into implementation details I'd add third important
mechanism used by IGPs to maintain reasonably up-to-date LSDB - exchange of
Hello/Keepalive messages between immediate neighbors.
Regards,
Greg
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 8:23 AM, Greg Bernstein
15 matches
Mail list logo
