Re: [Pce] Fw: I-D Action:draft-farrel-pce-vendor-constraints-00.txt

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian at olddog.co.uk>]

Hi,

Actually, the case I had in mind was where the constraints are 
vendor-specific but are publicly available. For example, if you buy a PCE 
from vendor X, it may offer standard features and vendor-specific features. 
If you want to operate a standard PCC then no problem, but if you want to 
use the vendor-specific features you use the published format for the 
object. The publication might be in a user manual or in an RFC 
(Informational/Experimental).

Of course, the cases you talk about where the object is only used between a 
PCC and PCE both from the same vendor also applies, and in that case no 
publication would be required.

I don't see why we would limit this to use within a single domain. It is 
possible for two PCEs in neighboring domains to communicate and pass 
vendor-specific constraints. It might be that significant policies are 
implemented at domain boundaries to restrict their use, but that is an 
operational feature not a protocol feature.

Adrian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dan Li" <danli at huawei.com>
To: "Meral Shirazipour" <meral.shirazipour at polymtl.ca>; "Adrian Farrel" 
<adrian at olddog.co.uk>
Cc: <pce at ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 3:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Pce] Fw: I-D Action:draft-farrel-pce-vendor-constraints-00.txt


> Hi,
>
> Since the constraints information is vendor specific, so the 
> VENDOR-CONSTRAINT object can't be used in one domain which consists of 
> different vendor's equipments. On the other side, if there are two 
> domains, which consists of same vendor's equipments, the VENDOR-CONSTRAINT 
> object should not be limited in only one domain. It can be exchanged 
> between two PCEs where each PCE covers one domain.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Meral Shirazipour" <meral.shirazipour at polymtl.ca>
> To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian at olddog.co.uk>
> Cc: <pce at ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 6:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [Pce] Fw: I-D 
> Action:draft-farrel-pce-vendor-constraints-00.txt
>
>
> Hi,
>   In Section 5.6 raises an obvious issue :
>   "the presence of additional vendor-specific
>   information in PCEP messages may congest the operation of the
>   protocol especially if the PCE does not support the constraints
>   supplied by the PCC."
>
> Would it be safer to propose that the proposed feature should only be used 
> for
> inter-area and inter-layer path computations (and not for inter-domain)?! 
> I
> don't really see the prospect of using vendor specific constraints in an
> inter-domain environment...


_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce