Hello everyone,
as some of you may have noticed, the draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce's
definition of LSP object conflicts with that of RFC7150
(VENDOR-INFORMATION/Vendor-Specific Constraints), as both specify the
object to be 32/1. This is obviously bad, and resolving it requires one
of the specifications to move.
Given that the stateful draft is being shipped by multiple vendors for
quite some time now, this puts us in a tight spot of having to choose
which implementations to break by moving their codepoint allocation.
With that, I would like to as the WG the following three incremental
questions:
Are there any RFC7150 implementations fielded?
If so, are they using the Vendor-Specific Contraints object?
If so, how much breakage would ensue should the object codepoint be moved?
Thanks,
Robert
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
