Dear Authors,
I went through yr draft and have few comments ...
* In introduction you say that PCE to PCE is out of scope while at the
bottom of section 2 you say that PCE to PCE should be done as if
requesting PCE is PCC. A bit confusing.
* Also stating that PCE to PCE is out of scope you sort of cross PCE to
PCE synchronization for redundancy. I understand that in the spirit of
the draft it would have to go via PCC attached to 2 or more PCEs.
* 3.1.2 typo .. double "which"
* 3.1.2.3 .. I am not sure what are you showing in table 6. Demand 20
seems not achievable no matter what. Please clarify.
* In some TE scenarios it is useful to bind the incoming port on the
headend to the TE-LSP from such headend. Maybe extending PCRpt message
with such field could be not a bad idea ?
* Why do you enforce to signal the RRO ? Maybe things changed but I was
under assumption that RRO is optional. At least most of the original TE
deployments never used RRO. For explicitly configured LSPs ERO is
sufficient. Is this that this document mandates the RRO to be enabled on
each LSP which you delegate control to PCE ? Otherwise you would not
know about the path cspf have chosen ? If so I think this RRO mandate
needs to be a bit more explicitly discussed.
* Section 6.2 talks about PCE to PCC overload case (PCUpd rate
exceeded). Cool. How about the reverse ?
Best regards,
R.
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
