Hi JP, IMO, we don't need two methods. The method of extending IGP may impact on large aspect. Extending BRPC and PCEP defined in this draft is enough.
Thanks, Xihua JP Vasseur <[email protected]> 发件人: [email protected] 2011-07-25 下午 08:30 收件人 王磊 <[email protected]> 抄送 [email protected] 主题 Re: [Pce] request timeslot for draft-wang-pce-inter-as-extentions-01 Thanks for your feed-back. It would be interesting to hear from the WG if indeed we need two methods. To each specific problem we can certainly find a number of way to solve it, but let's try to make sure that we do not specify a new technique if we can use what exist today. WG ? Thanks. JP. On Jul 25, 2011, at 12:25 AM, 王磊 wrote: Hi, Xuerong and PCEers I have read the draft. It provides an alternate method that extends BRPC and PCEP protocol to get TE information of Inter-AS biderectional links. In my opinion, It is useful for the smooth upgrade of existing MPLS/GMPLS networks to support Inter-AS bidirectional path computation, because it need not any extension or modification to the IGP (such as OSPF and IS-IS) used in MPLS/GMPLS-enabled routers/switches. However, the method of IGP extension is also applicable and suitable for new network-equipments. So, I think there is no conflict between these two metods. The draft could be used in the scenario where the IGP extension of Inter-AS biderectional links can not be supported. Thanks. Lei Wang Tsinghua University, Beijing, China [email protected] or [email protected] _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
