Dimitri, Adrian, all, Thanks for clarification.
Yes, there is not much text on using PCE for L1VPNs, and L1VPNs have not started P&R in detail. My intension was we might want to start thinking about analysis of P&R in L1VPNs, and if that is the case, PCE may come into play. It was not my intention that PCE is *THE* solution for L1VPNs (analysis needed). Also, I agree that CE-CE recovery is beyond the basic mode. Thanks, Tomonori On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 04:26:04 +0100 "Adrian Farrel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dimitri, > > >> "- Dimitri: Please clarity the use of PCE > >> - Tomonori: As Adrian said, CCAMP has selected PCE. L1VPN is not > requiring > >> the use of PCE, but recognising the possiblity of using PCE for P&R" > > > > but this is not what adrian could have said as i've never seen a > statement > > such as L1VPN recognizes the possibility of using PCE for P&R ... as > > there is no CE dual homing discussion since so far > > In fact, what I said is recorded pretty well in the minutes immediately > above. To remind you, I was speaking from the floor as CCAMP chair. > > Adrian: CCAMP has a work item for multi-domain recovery. > The L1VPN CE has a different visibility from the core network so > is like multi-domain. > For the unprotected case in multi-domain, CCAMP found that PCE > would be a good approach > I may expect a similar approach from CCAMP for protected > multi-domain. > > You are right that L1VPN has not started work on P&R in any detail, and > functions like CE dual homing are beyond the scope of the Basic Model. So, > nothing is decided. > > Tomonori stressed that L1VPN does not require the use of PCE. He is also > correct to say that we should recognise and discuss the possility of using > PCE to resolve questions of computational visiblity. > > A > > PS. Thanks for the other comments below. > > > > > "Dimitri: It is a timing issue; They have today an OSPF environment and > > are willing to deploy quickly. > > BGP may be a solution in 4-5 years" > > > > the last part of the message was "No doubt that BGP is a sensible > > approach, but if we have to base our timing > > by relying on IGP deployment experience, BGP may be the solution of > choice > > in 4-5 years." > > > > "Yakov: Update on the BGP-based auto-discovery > > We don't want to have a new AFI, we just need a new SAFI > > New format for l1vpn LNRI" > > > > guess you mean NLRI > > > > > > > > > > > > "Adrian Farrel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 10/04/2006 15:25 > > Please respond to Adrian Farrel > > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > cc: > > Subject: [L1vpn] Draft minutes uploaded > > > > > > Hi, > > > > Please review the minutes at > > http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06mar/minutes/l1vpn.html > > > > Comments on the list or to the chairs. > > > > Thanks, > > Adrian > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > L1vpn mailing list > > L1vpn@lists.ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l1vpn > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > L1vpn mailing list > L1vpn@lists.ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l1vpn _______________________________________________ L1vpn mailing list L1vpn@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l1vpn
