Hi,
please see in-line. 

1) in case of stateful PCE, is it mandatory to include the full list of RROs in 
the PCReq message?

 

Young>> I am not sure of your definition of stateful PCE. If you mean stateful 
PCE to be the PCE that keeps the state of the active LSPs at the PCE, this is 
beyond the scope of PCEP in IETF. Nonetheless, if this is what you mean by 
stateful PCE, I am not sure why you need to send the full list of RROs in the 
PCReq message since the PCE keeps such information with stateful PCE. When you 
want to do re-optimization with stateless PCE, you need to send the full list 
of RROs of the LSPs to be re-optimized in the PC Req message. This way PCE 
needs not maintain the state of LSPs at the PCE level.   



Filippo>> agree that in case of Stateful PCE (yes, the one that keeps the state 
of active LSPs) there is no need to send the full list, however, in 
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-12.txt, section 7.4.1 and .2, it is reported that in case 
of re-optimization, PCReq messages MUST include RROs. 



 

2) In section 2, Terminology, GCO is defined to consider only the entire 
network, while in the rest of the document also network subsets are allowed. 

Is the use of "Global" associated to both the cases of entire network and 
network subsets or is it just related to the entire network?

 

Young>> Although GCO considers the entire network in general case, there are 
applications of GCO where only a subset of TE LSPs can be re-optimized. This 
has a protocol support. I believe you are quoting the statement in the 
Introduction, "Alternatively, the application may consider a subset of the LSPs 
and/or a subset of the network topology." I may have to delete the last clause. 
This can be achieved, but we don't have ways to limit the whole topology into a 
subset in the current PCEP for GCO. Are you aware of any good application for 
this case? 

 

Filippo>> Yes, exactly that statement in the introduction which should become 
consistent with the rest of the document. 

To restrict the computation to a network subset, a possible solution could be 
the use of IRO object, e.g. specifying the IP prefix or AS number (don't know 
how to indicate Area ID).



Typo: in section 4, "section 6.1.14 of [RFC4657]" -> "section 5.1.14 of.."



Thanks

  Filippo




_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Reply via email to