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

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

Meral,

> Does that mean that to avoid these serious issues (Section 5.6),
> PCE discovery 'Should' also retrieve the 'Vendor' information
> of other PCEs? > If so, Section 5.5 and 5.6 could maybe be
> merged and slightly modified to further discuss/emphasize this.

The issue here is for a PCC to not send vendor constraints that are not a 
valuable part of the request, or that will not be used by the PCE.

5.6 recommends two ways to collect the capabilities information. One of 
these is discovery, btu that is not the only way. So it would not be correct 
to make discovery a SHOULD.

> But then, another issue would be SPs who do not want to advertise the 
> 'vendor'
> information to other domains. What to do then?

There is no process for advertising capabilities between domains. In PCEP 
exchanges between cooperating PCEs, there is the possibility to exchange PCE 
capabilities, but these would typically be subject to significant policy. 
OTOH, PCE partnering between administrations s likely to include the maual 
distribution of PCE capabilities.

> However I do not see at all how this will not become an obstacle to the 
> initial
> goal of the PCE architecture: that of having a "standard" way for PCEs 
> from
> different vendors AND from different domains, to cooperate and compute
> Inter-Domain paths.
>
> That is why I was insinuating to 'maybe' make any extra, vendor specific,
> functionality only available for inter-area and inter-layer cases... [but
> again, nothing prevents an admin to purchase PCEs from different 
> vendors]...

I wonder if you mean intra-area, etc.

There is no reason that I see to prevent the use of this object in a wider 
context. If you find that you can't use it, then don't use it :-)

Adrian 


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