Hi Dhruv.
PCEP does not mandates more rules on ERO than RSVP-TE, which reminds me
of an old discussion in CCAMP. You may want to have a look at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00 and dive
into the associated thread back in 2006.
Julien
Jun. 16, 2014 - Dhruv Dhody:
Attaching the figure in a pdf, in case you could not view in my previous
mail.
Regards,
Dhruv
---------------------------------------------------------------
*Dhruv Dhody *
System Architect,
Huawei Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.,
Banagalore
Mobile: +91-9845062422
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from
HUAWEI, which
is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above.
Any use of the
information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to,
total or partial
disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the
intended
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please
notify the sender by
phone or email immediately and delete it!
*From:*Dhruv Dhody
*Sent:* 16 June 2014 11:52
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* PCEP ERO
Dear WG,
Consider the below topology, PCE computes a path from RTA to RTC.
This path maybe encoded in PCEP ERO as -
~ (10.1.1.1, 10.1.1.2, 20.1.1.1, 20.1.1.2)
or
~ (10.1.1.2, 20.1.1.1, 20.1.1.2) [without local IP address of ingress]
IMO both should be considered as viable options.
Is there any reason for PCC to consider one of them as incorrect?
Regards,
Dhruv
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dhruv Dhody
System Architect,
Huawei Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.,
Banagalore
Mobile: +91-9845062422
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
