Hi Nic,
Just to be sure we understand, can you please confirm that the following definition corresponds to what you name S2L sub-path diversity: For each leaf Ln the path from S to Ln in the primary P2MP LSP is Link (or node or SRLG) diverse with the S to Ln path in the secondary P2MP LSP. If this is correct I also think this is a good suggestion that would be easily fulfilled by defining a new bit in the SVEC object in next draft version. BR Fabien _____ De : Nic Neate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Envoyé : mercredi 19 novembre 2008 21:29 À : [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc : [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] Objet : Comment on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions Hi, I have a suggestion for a small extension to the PCEP P2MP draft. I believe the base PCEP specification currently has three options for calculating diverse protection paths: link diverse, node diverse and SRLG diverse (draft-ietf-pce-pcep section 7.13.2). In P2MP, S2L sub-path diverse is another important case. I think it would be good to allow the PCC to request computation of S2L sub-path diverse protection paths. This is useful when doing 1+1 protection in a ring topology, for example. Nic
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
