Re: [Pce] PCEP ERO

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
>