[PANRG] Comments regarding draft-enghardt-panrg-path-properties

["Luis M. Contreras" <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

After attending the presentation of the draft during the PANRG session in
Singapore, I have gone through the document and some comments / doubts come
to my mind.

.- The access technology is mentioned as one of the path properties. This
implies the consideration of the client interface (or sub-interface) as
intrinsic part of the path. Is that the case? In the PCE stuff, the result
of the computation of a path is the Explicit Route Object (ERO) who is
basically a serie of nodes indicating the selected path. By considering the
client interface the definition here would exceed the one considering in
the ERO concept, thus being the ERO a sub-path according to the terminology
in this draft. Please, could you clarify the approach?

.- Service function is another of the properties considered for the path.
In my view, the service function is rather a client (or termination) of a
given path, and not an intrinsic part of it.

.- Regarding the concept of path I wonder if it would be convenient to
distinguish the idea of physical path vs logical path.

.- I also was thinking on the realization of a path. I mean, a path can be
simply equivalent to a route (i.e., a list of links) or something much more
complex, including e.g. slots in FlexEth connections or ODUs in OTN,
aggregated links in LAG configurations, etc. I presume that the purpose of
the draft is about the latter, but some clarification would be benefitial.

.- Finally some degree of recursiveness can be also considered. A path in a
given layer is supported by paths on lower layers. Having this idea of
recursiveness can be useful for purposes such as inventory, alarm
correlation, multi-layer optimization, etc.

Best regards

Luis

-- 
___________________________________________
Luis M. Contreras
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Global CTIO unit / Telefonica