Hi Vishwas, Good point.
This is mentioned in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-05. Specifically, where a sequence of PCE IDs is required: a. put each PCE ID in a separate object b. allow a sequence of objects So, if we have to have a sequence of PCEs it would be better to define the sequences to go in the messages. I completely agree that we should be able to freely mix IPv4 and IPv6 on an end-to-end path. The addresses will not be mixed within a domain, but successive domains might use different address formats. I'd think that the message format we planned to have: <PCE-SEQUENCE> ... Should now be: (<branch-delimiter> <PCE-ID> ...) ... Br, Dan. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Vishwas Manral Sent: 16 December 2009 20:12 To: [email protected] Subject: [Pce] draft-zhao-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures Hi Quintin, I was seeing the "PCE Sequence Object", why can a sequence not have either IPv4 and IPv6 identifiers for PCE in the same object? We shouls allow a sequence of PCE's with IPv4 or IPv6 addresses. It can easily be done by adding a type field before every time we add he address. +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Object-Class | OT |Res|P|I| Object Length (bytes) | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Addr type | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | IPv4 address for root PCE | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Thanks, Vishwas _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
