This mail is a poll to the working group regarding the implementation status of
the PCEP extension for PCE-initiated LSPs.
If you are working on an implementation of these extensions, please share your
experience and feedback with the draft authors, either on the mailing list or
in private.
Th
El 09/10/2013 7:28, Ina Minei escribió:
This mail is a poll to the working group regarding the implementation
status of the PCEP extension for PCE-initiated LSPs.
If you are working on an implementation of these extensions, please
share your experience and feedback with the draft authors, either
: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 11:51 PM
To: Ina Minei; pce@ietf.org
Cc: Siva Sivabalan (msiva)
Subject: Re: [Pce] Implementation experience with
draft-crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp?
El 09/10/2013 7:28, Ina Minei escribió:
This mail is a poll to the working group regarding the implementation status of
Ramon,
Thank you again for the productive conversations and the great feedback.
Posting the summary of the discussions, for the benefit of the list, please
look for [ina].
Ina
- Redundant ERO and ENDPOINTS in the deletion request E->C. This can be
addressed with a tweak in the RBNF.
::=
(
El 11/10/2013 23:14, Ina Minei escribió:
ways to refer to an LSP: by its plspid bound to a given PCEP
connection, by its symbolic name, by its control plane identifiers, by
the srpid after a request The exact usage could be clarified and,
in latest versions, some seem to be redundant: can't
g] On Behalf Of Ramon
Casellas
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 8:45 AM
To: Ina Minei; pce@ietf.org
Cc: Siva Sivabalan (msiva)
Subject: Re: [Pce] Implementation experience with
draft-crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp?
El 11/10/2013 23:14, Ina Minei escribió:
ways to refer to an LSP: by its plspid bound
