Re: [Pce] PCEP ERO

Julien is right (of course).

This survey led (in part) to RFC 4990. section 6 may be what Dhruv is looking
for.

A nasty question lurking in the background is whether a PCC needs to indicate
which construction of ERO is prefers. Consider if the interface was CLI not
PCEP: in this case the supported construction of ERO is part of the CLI
definition. However, given that most of the ERO is not for local consumption and
does not need to be examined by the PCC, this question may be of debatable
value.

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
> Sent: 16 June 2014 10:27
> To: Julien Meuric
> Cc: pce@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Pce] PCEP ERO
> 
> Hi Julien,
> 
> Thanks for the pointer, this surely helps.
> Time to dive into the archives.....
> 
> Dhruv
> 
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Dhruv.
> >
> > PCEP does not mandates more rules on ERO than RSVP-TE, which reminds me
> of
> > an old discussion in CCAMP. You may want to have a look at
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00 and dive into
> > the associated thread back in 2006.
> >
> > Julien
> >
> >
> > Jun. 16, 2014 - Dhruv Dhody:
> >>
> >> Attaching the figure in a pdf, in case you could not view in my previous
> >> mail.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Dhruv
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> *Dhruv Dhody *
> >>
> >>
> >> System Architect,
> >>
> >> Huawei Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.,
> >>
> >> Banagalore
> >>
> >> Mobile: +91-9845062422
> >>
> >> This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from
> >> HUAWEI, which
> >>
> >> is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above.
> >> Any use of the
> >>
> >> information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to,
> >> total or partial
> >>
> >> disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the
> >> intended
> >>
> >> recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please
> >> notify the sender by
> >>
> >> phone or email immediately and delete it!
> >>
> >> *From:*Dhruv Dhody
> >> *Sent:* 16 June 2014 11:52
> >> *To:* pce@ietf.org
> >> *Subject:* PCEP ERO
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear WG,
> >>
> >>
> >> Consider the below topology, PCE computes a path from RTA to RTC.
> >>
> >> This path maybe encoded in PCEP ERO as  -
> >>
> >> ~ (10.1.1.1, 10.1.1.2, 20.1.1.1, 20.1.1.2)
> >>
> >> or
> >>
> >> ~ (10.1.1.2, 20.1.1.1, 20.1.1.2) [without local IP address of ingress]
> >>
> >> IMO both should be considered as viable options.
> >>
> >> Is there any reason for PCC to consider one of them as incorrect?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Dhruv
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Dhruv Dhody
> >>
> >> System Architect,
> >>
> >> Huawei Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.,
> >>
> >> Banagalore
> >>
> >> Mobile: +91-9845062422
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Pce mailing list
> >> Pce@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pce mailing list
> > Pce@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce