: Jan Medved (jmedved) [mailto:jmed...@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 11:58 AM
To: Leeyoung
Cc: Edward Crabbe; Fatai Zhang; pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] 答复: Questions about stateful PCE, relation to WG charter and
opinion about stateful PCE
Hi Young,
On Nov 12, 2012, at 6:05 AM
ou still use this kind of tone, sorry, I will ignore your response.
Best Regards
Fatai
发件人: Edward Crabbe [mailto:e...@google.com<mailto:e...@google.com>]
发送时间: 2012年11月12日 11:59
收件人: Fatai Zhang
抄送: Jan Medved (jmedved); pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org>
主题: Re: [Pce] 答复: Questions
>
>
> In addition, I would like to remind that **set** != **delegation**, maybe
> we stray a little from the point, J
>
Please clearly explain your perception of the difference.
>
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Best Regards
>
> ** **
>
> Fatai
>
> ** **
>
> *发件人:* Jan Medved (jme
Hi Jan,
[RFC5440] says:
If the requested bandwidth is equal to 0, the BANDWIDTH object is optional.
Conversely, if the requested bandwidth is not equal to 0, the PCReq message
MUST contain a BANDWIDTH object.
I don’t think this means that PCE can set the bandwdith. All the paratermetes
(eith
We currently appear to be involved in some sort of pre-fiat working group
process debate. Unfortunately, I think you're injecting a particularly
onerous and unnecessary sort of wg bureaucracy here, and for no discernible
reason. At this point, given the lack of any substantive technical
argument,
Hi Jan,
You said:
=>By requesting a path computation from a PCE, the PCC gives the PCE authority
to determine the ERO, LSP Bandwidth, protection, LSP setup and hold priorities,
etc. The PCE is the entity that determines these parameters - would you agree?
[Fatai] Sorry, I don’t agree. The parame
On 11/09/2012 09:20 AM, Fatai Zhang wrote:
Hi Jan,
Hi Fatai,
>The PCE is not limited to path computation only. The PCE can set other LSP
parameters as well: RFC5440 defines objects for bandwidth, setup &
hold priorities, the local protection flag, etc. More LSP parameters
have been added
Hi Jan,
>The PCE is not limited to path computation only. The PCE can set other LSP
>parameters as well: RFC5440 defines objects for bandwidth, setup & hold
>priorities, the local protection flag, etc. More LSP parameters have been
>added in subsequent RFCs and drafts.
[Fatai] I have to in
-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext
Edward Crabbe
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 8:57 AM
To: Fatai Zhang
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce]答复: Questions about stateful PCE, relation to WG charter and
opinion about stateful PCE
AFAIK:
(a): we are getting guidance from the chairs on an
AFAIK:
(a): we are getting guidance from the chairs on an ongoing basis and
(b): the solution and framework are coupled and are reasonably well defined
currently, modulo the (largely aesthetic) considerations raised
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Fatai Zhang wrote:
> Hi Oscar, Ed and all,***
Hi Oscar, Ed and all,
I totally agree with Oscar.
I think we should follow the regular procedures of PCE WG (IETF as well) to
define the foundation work first including FWK, requirement, applicability
before dropping into the solution stuff.
Guidance from WG chairs on this stateful PCE work mu
11 matches
Mail list logo
