Exactly. I agree that a new bit in the SVEC object is the way to do this. Thanks,
Nic ________________________________ From: Fabien Verhaeghe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 20 November 2008 17:00 To: Nic Neate; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; pce@ietf.org Subject: RE: Comment on draft-ietf-pce-pcep-p2mp-extensions 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]; pce@ietf.org 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 Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
