Re: [Pce] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pce-pcep-xro-04.txt
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Pce] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pce-pcep-xro-04.txt
Hi JP,
Yes. I will submit the revision soon.
Thank you.
Eiji
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:24:18 -0400
JP Vasseur <jvasseur at cisco.com> wrote:
> Hi Eiji,
>
>
> > From: Eiji Oki <oki.eiji at lab.ntt.co.jp>
> > Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 09:27:24 +0900
> > To: Fabien Verhaeghe <fabien.verhaeghe at marben-products.com>
> > Cc: <pce at ietf.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pce-pcep-xro-04.txt
> >
> > Fabien,
> >
> > Yes, you are right. We should match the base PCEP spec.
> > We will change 3 to 4, 4 to 32, and 5 to 34.
> > Is it OK to make this change during working group last call?
>
> If OK with you I would suggest to make the change now, and we will then Last
> Call the document.
>
> Thanks.
>
> JP.
>
> >
> > Thank you.
> > Eiji
> >
> > On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:49:21 +0100
> > "Fabien Verhaeghe" <fabien.verhaeghe at marben-products.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Sorry to come back on this subject but it is still not clear to me why we
> >> are using different subobject types between XRO and ERO/RRO/IRO in PCEP.
> >>
> >> Is there any particular reason?
> >>
> >> In http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-11.txt
> >> Type Subobject
> >> 1 IPv4 prefix
> >> 2 IPv6 prefix
> >> 4 Unnumbered Interface ID
> >> 32 Autonomous system number
> >>
> >> In http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-xro-04.txt
> >>
> >> Type Subobject
> >> -------------+-------------------------------
> >> 1 IPv4 prefix
> >> 2 IPv6 prefix
> >> 3 Unnumbered Interface ID
> >> 4 Autonomous system number
> >> 5 SRLG
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Fabien
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Message d'origine-----
> >>> De?: pce-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces at ietf.org] De la part de
> >>> Internet-Drafts at ietf.org
> >>> Envoy鬆: mercredi 19 mars 2008 18:30
> >>> タ?: i-d-announce at ietf.org
> >>> Cc?: pce at ietf.org
> >>> Objet?: [Pce] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pce-pcep-xro-04.txt
> >>>
> >>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> >>> directories.
> >>> This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element Working Group of
> >>> the IETF.
> >>>
> >>> Title : Extensions to the Path Computation Element
> >>> Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Route Exclusions
> >>> Author(s) : E. Oki, A. Farrel
> >>> Filename : draft-ietf-pce-pcep-xro-04.txt
> >>> Pages : 16
> >>> Date : 2008-3-19
> >>>
> >>> The Path Computation Element (PCE) provides functions of path
> >>> computation in support of traffic engineering in Multi-Protocol
> >>> Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks.
> >>>
> >>> When a Path Computation Client (PCC) requests a PCE for a route, it
> >>> may be useful for the PCC to specify, as constraints to the path
> >>> computation, abstract nodes, resources, and Shared Risk Link Groups
> >>> (SRLGs) that are to be explicitly excluded from the computed route.
> >>> Such constraints are termed route exclusions.
> >>>
> >>> The PCE Communication Protocol (PCEP) is designed as a communication
> >>> protocol between PCCs and PCEs. This document presents PCEP
> >>> extensions for route exclusions.
> >>>
> >>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-xro-04.txt
> >>>
> >>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> >>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> >>>
> >>> Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
> >>> implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
> >>> Internet-Draft.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Pce mailing list
> >> Pce at ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pce mailing list
> > Pce at ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.