IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pce] PCEP ERO

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 16 June 2014 09:27 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBFEF1A03FF for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:27:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LTIpSqxJ6K5P for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x231.google.com (mail-ie0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A8651A0324 for <pce@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f177.google.com with SMTP id tp5so4729555ieb.22 for <pce@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:27:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=TIW1UPZ86uAGUpXsNWuBjcMyN4qRmIM5139wC5pca9U=; b=h1ZjCiFCkKrkD5JxZMZ13a+TsXxUOl9YuA5BzSA0w4jw0VDYPZQJnJ1/hnQJZSKbpz ZpcpH0wdtz74P9Ylsu9IfbQYu3QjG21VlwB9PTFs2KONkkF47QaXuWwOlViCyw3+rVGm KbHGy9Fmv6sgxj2HdV78XcaoX3YOSDvfW+w1chjQiS6LrNRBcdQk7xecVIj9UHn7u5q5 UhYJxdhdnk8t5savWvQKuZkn7Mz/bAVU21CFN/4De1uKD5kZ1GmC8leCy7qRX9b1ROKD jKlxNb1KfOw4djuINXOQuBeDc7Quxm0KYITSOlinIfpSGjtXjSgSIcq+LSOwz5bG9D9m +rVA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.79.164 with SMTP id k4mr24265492igx.3.1402910837544; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:27:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.179.98 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 02:27:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <539EB1E9.2040008@orange.com>
References: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B7556E603@szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com> <539EB1E9.2040008@orange.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 14:57:17 +0530
Message-ID: <CAB75xn475ROzMBxN1YY=4a+vqxgyYddBi3KQncetznLp3md_yA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/QXwnWeGvBZ76hbGQgANDCTJ29YU
Cc: "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Pce] PCEP ERO
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pce/>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 09:27:19 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email