t;pce@ietf.org" , "Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)"
, "vishnupavan.i...@gmail.com"
, "Mike Koldychev (mkoldych)"
Subject: RE: [Pce] Proposal for signaling ECMP or UCMP paths
Mike,
Thanks for the consideration.
That was exactly my point, having a number of d
Thanks,
> Mike.
>
> From: Mike Koldychev (mkoldych)
> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 9:03 AM
> To: Mike Koldychev (mkoldych) ; Cyril Margaria
>
> Cc: pce@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Pce] Proposal for signaling ECMP or UCMP paths
>
> Hi,
>
> I have updated the slides based on
as long as it’s understood
that they are not “conflicting” solutions.
Thanks,
Mike.
From: Mike Koldychev (mkoldych)
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 9:03 AM
To: Mike Koldychev (mkoldych) ; Cyril Margaria
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Pce] Proposal for signaling ECMP or UCMP paths
Hi,
I have
: Pce On Behalf Of Mike Koldychev (mkoldych)
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 1:03 PM
To: Cyril Margaria
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] Proposal for signaling ECMP or UCMP paths
Hi Cyril,
Like I wrote in the slides… Solution 1 may work if you *only* do PCE-initiated,
because the PCC never
: Re: [Pce] Proposal for signaling ECMP or UCMP paths
Hi Mike,
One of my point is that one optimization is a peculiar case of n optimization.
For the particuliar case of candidate path, it can be attached to a given
association, each TE-LSP can have the same optimization criterias.
I understand
tribute your input.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike.
>
>
>
> *From:* Cyril Margaria
> *Sent:* Friday, July 19, 2019 9:37 AM
> *To:* Mike Koldychev (mkoldych)
> *Cc:* pce@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Pce] Proposal for signaling ECMP or UCMP paths
>
>
>
&g
on Wednesday at 8:30 to discuss this topic,
you are welcome to attend if you want to contribute your input.
Thanks,
Mike.
From: Cyril Margaria
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 9:37 AM
To: Mike Koldychev (mkoldych)
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] Proposal for signaling ECMP or UCMP paths
Hi
Hi,
On slide "LSP objectives and constraints": Stateless PCE can compute set
of EROs/Label switch paths using RFC6007, including multi-domain and
multi-PCEs scenarios. This can be used for computing a set of EROs for SR
candidate paths, one case that can apply to the candidate path and
Hi WG,
As per SPRING WG, SR Policy may contain multiple Candidate Paths and each
Candidate Path may contain multiple Segment Lists. Existing SR standards in
PCEP allow only a single ERO (one Segment List) for the SR Path in a stateful
PCEP message. There is a need to signal multiple Segment
