Re: [Pce] Poll on Adoption of draft-minei-pce-association-group-03

yes/support Thanks Qilei Julien Meuric 发件人: "Pce" 2015-11-04 08:36 收件人 "pce@ietf.org" , 抄送 主题 [Pce] Poll on Adoption of draft-minei-pce-association-group-03 Dear all, Following our discussion during the WG meeting

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

Hi, Xian, Thanks, please see my reply in-line. Qilei Wang Zhangxian (Xian) zhang.x...@huawei.com 2013-09-16 15:45 收件人 wang.qi...@zte.com.cn wang.qi...@zte.com.cn, Ramon Casellas ramon.casel...@cttc.es, 抄送 pce@ietf.org pce@ietf.org 主题 RE: [Pce] A comment regarding domain diversity in

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

Hi, Xian, Do you mean the scenario that domain diversity can be used in? I can understand domain diversity can facilitate path diversity, and I also agree RFC5440 supports path diversity, but I don't know how RFC5440 could support domain diversity? That's what I am confused with. I'm not

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

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 to

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

Hi, authors, Section 1.3.2.2 of RFC6805 describes a new requirement domain diversity in hierarchy PCE scenario. But the extension draft do not address any detail about this requirement currently. According to the definition in RFC6805, domain diversity is referred to as that a pair of paths do

Re: [Pce] 答复: Comments on draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-08

Hi, Ramon, Cyril all, I second this solution. Defining new C-type can also keep the current protocol and implementation untouched. But we need to loose the restriction of bandwidth object in RFC5440 first. Besides, IMHO, the solution allowing TLVs can better help the path computation