Hi Fabien,
My personal thoughts are:
1. RSVP-TE and PCEP are not the same protocol.
It may be convenient for them to have common encodings, but
this is not a requirement.
2. The PCEP ERO, IRO, and XRO should have common encodings.
3. Since we are building a new protocol and can do it, we should
be future-proofed against the likely 4 octet AS number.
The consequence of this is that we should take the 4 octet AS number into
PCEP as standard. A non-consequence is that RSVP-TE needs to be fixed to
support 4 octet AS numbers (this will be required at some stage, but is not
required as a consequence of this work in the PCE working group).
Cheers,
Adrian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fabien VERHAEGHE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 1:01 PM
Subject: [Pce] draft-ietf-pce-pcep-xro-03.txt: AS number Hop format
> Hi,
>
> I have one question for XRO draft authors.
>
> The AS number hop encoding defined in XRO draft is slightly different than
> the one described in RFC3209 which is also used in PCEP ERO, IRO.
>
> I guess there is a need for 4 bytes AS number but don't we need to keep
> consistent the AS hop format for all kind of routes?
>
> Thanks
> Fabien
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
