Hi all, We may add on top of the reasons below the strong impact PCE-initiation has from the implementation's perspective (which is somehow linked to the first 2 items). Up to I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce, it was all about configuration on PCCs, just allowing PCEs to trigger actions. I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp is a significant change: it enables PCEs to create on PCCs states which are not part of operator-specified PCCs' configuration. As a result, there has already been some commercial implementations at the stage described by the 2nd item.
My 2 cents, Julien Oct. 04, 2017 - [email protected]: > 1) I'm wondering why this spec is not part of I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce as it > is also not published yet...? > > Jon> It has been published now. The main reasons were > - it took longer for PCE-initiated LSPs to be accepted into the PCE WG, and > the authors did not want to hold up work on the base draft > - I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce was a self-contained set of function and it was > envisioned that there was a class of device that would not implement the LSP > initiation extensions > - I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce was already fairly long and complex, and merging > them would have been an editing / reviewing headache. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
