On 07/13/2012 11:02 AM, Fatai Zhang wrote: > Hi all, > > A new version has been submitted. Only one change: > > Introduce a new PCEP object (SERVER-INDICATION) to replace ERO subobject in > Section 3.5, because one comment was raised that ERO subobject should defer > to CCAMP extension (RSVP-TE extension). > > Please review this draft for details. > Hi Fatai, authors,
Thanks for updating the draft, just a couple of questions, quoting: PCE MAY specify the server layer path information in the ERO. In this case, the requested PCE replies a PCRep message that includes at least two sets of ERO information in the path-list, one is for the client layer path information, and another one is the server layer path information. When SERVER-INDICATION is included in a PCRep message, it indicates that the path in the ERO is the server layer path information. Q1) for clarification, I take it that it is still possible that the "SERVER layer" part or segment can still be provided simply "embedded" in a single ERO that includes both layers, right? i.e. a single strict ERO in a MRN/MLN and that the corresponding region border node is responsible for detecting the far end etc. In other words, the use case where a single ERO includes both client and server layers (in a single path) would be ok, and not against the quoted paragraph: The response includes only 1 ERO A B C a b c d e D E F and, (optionally), a second path with ERO C a b c d e D + SERVER_INDICATION. (Before the update, we used A B C X a b c d e X D E F to "tag" region changes if needed). I take it the new text means "A PCE MAY specify both the client and server layers separately, in dedicated EROs. In this case..." is this right? A --- B --- C ============= D --- E -- F | | a -- b -- c -- d -- e Q2) Also, assume A is the higher layer LSP (A --> F) ingress node and the PCC, and a H-LSP / FA will be stablished when the high layer Path reaches C. Assume A gets the PCEP response from the PCE. The issue I have now is that how would RSVP-TE "forward" the server layer to C so it is useful? would I need to merge the ERO? In summary, in my implementation either: a) I have a multi-layer ERO, without "tags" or "banners" so each node needs to check if it is a region boundary node, and act accordingly- b) I have a multi-layer ERO, tagged with the sub-object (until draft -06) X. That subobject tells the ERO processing node that it is a boundary node, and both layers are "embedded" in a single ERO. c) I have e.g. two EROs, split on a per server basis : client and server. How do I forward these to node C? what is the benefit of splitting them? Hopefully I have formulated my question clearly :) Thanks and best regards Ramon
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
