Hi Adrian, Thanks for the fast reply.
Does it mean you think draft-ietf-pce-pcep-10.txt should be changed to reuse hop encoding as defined in XRO draft rather than the one in RFC3209/RFC3477? I have noted another difference which is that unnumbered interface hop is type 3 draft-ietf-pce-pcep-xro-03.txt whereas it is type 4 in draft-ietf-pce-pcep-10.txt (i.e. RFC3477). Would it make sense to proceed as follows: 1. Reusing exactly the same Hop subobject in XRO than in draft-ietf-pce-pcep-10.txt (i.e. the one defined in RFC3209/RFC3477 and maybe RFC3473 if we want to authorized label object in XRO). 2. Defining a new extended-AS subobject for 4 bytes AS number. 3. Stating in XRO draft that extended-AS subobject can be used also in PCEP ERO,RRO and IRO. I see 3 advantages: 1. It alleviates XRO draft since it requires only 1 hop subobject definition. 2. It Does not require any change in draft-ietf-pce-pcep-10.txt. 2. RSVP could reuse the same encoding if needed in the future so that Hop object encoding is perfectly align between PCEP and RSVP. Best regards Fabien > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Adrian Farrel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Envoyé : jeudi 28 février 2008 16:18 > À : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc : [email protected] > Objet : Re: [Pce] draft-ietf-pce-pcep-xro-03.txt: AS number Hop format > (possible PCEP last call comment) > > 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
