Hi,
Thanks for that Dhruv.
On that basis, I would update the second paragraph in Section 17 as...
OLD
An Active PCE is one that issues provisioning "recommendations" to
the network. These recommendations may be new routes for existing
LSPs, or routes for new LSPs. An Active PCE may be stateless or
stateful, but in order that it can reroute existing LSPs effectively,
it is likely to hold state for at least those LSPs that it will
reroute.
NEW
An Active PCE is one that issues provisioning "recommendations" to
the network. These recommendations may be new routes for existing
LSPs, or routes for new LSPs (that is, an Active PCE may recommend
the instantiation of new LSPs). An Active PCE may be stateless or
stateful, but in order that it can reroute existing LSPs effectively,
it is likely to hold state for at least those LSPs that it will
reroute.
END
...and the penultimate paragraph of Section 18 as...
OLD
It is important, however, to distinguish between an LSP established
within the network and subsequently delegated to a PCE, and an LSP
that was established by a commands from an Active PCE.
NEW
It is important, however, to distinguish between an LSP established
within the network and subsequently delegated to a PCE, and an LSP
that was established as the result of an Active PCE's recommendation
for LSP instantiation.
END
...and in Section 19...
OLD
There is a subtle distinction between an NMS and an Active PCE with
LSP delegation. An NMS is in control of the LSPs in the network and
can request that they are set up, modified, or torn down. An Active
PCE can only make suggestions about LSPs that have been delegated to
the PCE by a PCC.
NEW
There is a subtle distinction between an NMS and an Active PCE with
LSP delegation. An NMS is in control of the LSPs in the network and
can request that they are set up, modified, or torn down. An Active
PCE can only make suggestions about LSPs that have been delegated to
the PCE by a PCC, or make recommendations for the instantiation of
new LSPs.
END
...and lastly in Section 20...
OLD
6. This mode has potential for recommending new LSPs.
7. These modes are out of scope for PCE as currently described.
NEW
6. This mode has potential for recommending the instantiation of
new LSPs.
7. These modes are out of scope for PCE as currently described.
That is, the PCE can recommend instantiation, but cannot
actually instantiate the LSPs.
END
Cheers,
Adrian
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dhruv
Dhody
Sent: 14 April 2014 14:58
To: Farrel Adrian
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-questions-04
Hi Adrian, Chairs,
Use of "recommend instantiation" as suggested by Adrian works for me.
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pce/current/msg03711.html)
Can the authors of draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp confirm?
Dhruv
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks chairs,
As part of the last call I would like to know whether we reached complete
closure on the initiated/suggested LSP debate. I think the main protagonists
would be the authors of draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp and Dhruv who raised
the issue in the first place.
Thanks,
Adrian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pce [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Julien Meuric
> Sent: 09 April 2014 09:23
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-questions-04
>
> Hi all.
>
> This message ignites a PCE WG last call on draft-ietf-pce-questions-04.
> It will end on Wednesday, April 23, 11:59 PM (UTC-12).
>
> Thanks,
>
> JP & Julien
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
