Re: [Pce] request timeslot for draft-wang-pce-inter-as-extentions-01

[Fatai Zhang]

Hi all,

RFC5392 is a kind of mechamism and it is already there.

Why we need to define another solution based on some nonexistent assumption?







Fatai

Thanks
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: JP Vasseur 
  To: fu.xi...@zte.com.cn 
  Cc: pce-boun...@ietf.org ; pce@ietf.org ; 王磊 
  Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 1:20 AM
  Subject: Re: [Pce] request timeslot for draft-wang-pce-inter-as-extentions-01


  Hi,


  On Jul 25, 2011, at 11:16 AM, fu.xi...@zte.com.cn wrote:



    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. 




  So let the WG decide which one of the methods is most appropriate


  Thanks.


  JP.


    Thanks, 

    Xihua 


          JP Vasseur <j...@cisco.com> 
          发件人:  pce-boun...@ietf.org
          2011-07-25 下午 08:30 
         收件人 王磊 <hechen0...@gmail.com>  
                抄送 pce@ietf.org  
                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
    hechen0...@gmail.com or l...@tsinghua.edu.cn
    _______________________________________________
    Pce mailing list
    Pce@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce 

    _______________________________________________
    Pce mailing list
    Pce@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce








------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  Pce mailing list
  Pce@ietf.org
  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce