Re: [Pce] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-pcecp-interarea-reqs-04.txt
Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be Wed, 29 November 2006 08:34 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GpKu0-0008S0-8g; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 03:34:48 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GpKtz-0008Rv-4I for pce@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 03:34:47 -0500
Received: from smail.alcatel.fr ([62.23.212.165]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GpKtw-000097-Km for pce@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 03:34:47 -0500
Received: from bemail05.netfr.alcatel.fr (bemail05.netfr.alcatel.fr [155.132.251.11]) by smail.alcatel.fr (8.13.4/8.13.4/ICT) with ESMTP id kAT8Yi5B025782; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:34:44 +0100
In-Reply-To: <26774B45-13E1-4902-A970-021BF0E86CF4@cisco.com>
To: JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-pcecp-interarea-reqs-04.txt
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5 September 26, 2003
Message-ID: <OFEA8F9D65.1E907ADC-ONC1257235.002DED73-C1257235.002F1E5D@netfr.alcatel.fr>
From: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:34:38 +0100
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on BEMAIL05/BE/ALCATEL(Release 5.0.13aHF163 | June 23, 2005) at 11/29/2006 09:34:39, Serialize complete at 11/29/2006 09:34:39
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 155.132.180.81
X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f66b12316365a3fe519e75911daf28a8
Cc: pce@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: pce@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/pce>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: pce-bounces@lists.ietf.org
hi comment on this doc. 4.5. Inclusion of Area IDs in Request The knowledge of the areas in which the source and destination lie would allow selection of appropriate cooperating PCEs. => so is there an assumption that the PCE-Area ID knowledge is available - how come ? A PCE may not be able to determine the location of the source and destination and in such a case it would be useful that a PCC indicates the source and destination area IDs. => not sure to see the reasoning - i guess the initial PCE referred to here is an intermediate PCE that does not have any visibility of the source/destination areas and potentially more - the whole problem in this sentence is the interpretation of the term - location - For that purpose the request message MUST support the inclusion of the source and destination area IDs. Note that this information could be learned by the PCC through configuration. => how to be sure that the local area PCE is going only to be contacted by local area PCC's - we're entering into a chicken egg problem, from one side mandate knowledge of source/destination area but on the other there is no guarantee about interpretation of this information before knowing the PCC - area ID relationship 4.6. Area Inclusion/Exclusion In some situations it may be useful to include one or more area(s) in the path. => for inter-area it is certainly true that the actual path will cross multiple areas but i wonder whether what you mean is not the request includes one or more areas to be followed by the path to be computed It may also be useful to exclude one or more area(s) from the path (e.g. request for a path between LSRs in two stub areas connected to the same ABR(s), which must not cross the backbone area). Hence the request message MUST allow indicating a set of one or more area(s) that must be explicitly included in the path, and a set of one or more area(s) that must be explicitly excluded from the path. => be prepared to incorporate a loop avoidance mechanism, in case the request will have to cross multiple PCEs other comments to follow - d. JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com> 22/11/2006 15:51 To: pce@ietf.org cc: Subject: [Pce] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-pcecp-interarea-reqs-04.txt Dear WG, A new revision of draft-ietf-pce-pcecp-interarea-reqs (rev -04) has been posted that addresses the remaining issues/comments. This email initiates a Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-pce- pcecp-interarea-reqs-04.txt. The last call will end on December 8th at noon EST. Please send your comments to the mailing list. Thanks. JP. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
- [Pce] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-p… JP Vasseur
- Re: [Pce] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-p… Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- [Pce] specific comment on draft-ietf-pce-pcecp-in… Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- [Pce] WG LC on draft-ietf-pce-pcecp-interarea-req… JP Vasseur