Hello Julie, all,
I support the draft, but I want to take the opportunity to raise a
common point between this draft, BRPC and inter-domain stuff in general.
IMHO, I think that it is missing something in the different proposal to
compute inter-domain tunnel. This is related to the TED. Indeed, there
is no proposal to collect suitable information that could help the PCE
(in BRPC or in H-PCE) to select (compute) the AS path, and so select the
better (regarding the request) peer PCE. Such information, like TE of
the peering point between two ASs, are mandatory if we want to select
alternate AS path than the one announced by BGP. If such mandatory
information are out of scope of PCE WG, I'm afraid that, for me, their
is no difference between the BRPC and H-PCE, instead on how PCE are
cooperate. The result will be the same in term of path computation.
Is this make sense for the PCE WG and if yes, do you think it is
suitable to propose a draft for that purpose (we have some ideas for
that here) ?
Regards,
Olivier
Le 09/20/11 17:08, Julien Meuric a écrit :
Hi PCE WG.
The framework for hierarchical PCE has been there for long, discussed
several times and was pending the charter update. This is a poll for
adopting draft-king-pce-hierarchy-fwk-06 as WG document. Please reply
to this message to express either your support, i.e. you consider the
I-D is a good foundation to address the issue, or your objection,
which you are expected to clarify.
Thank you,
JP & Julien
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
--
*Olivier Dugeon*
FT/NSM/RD/CORE/M2I/CRM
Senior research engineer, QoS and network control
Phone/Fax: +33 296 05 2880/1470
Mobile: +33 6 82 90 37 85
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
