Hi Aijun, Thanks for the support. Regarding your question, I think we can clarify this point in the next version. If a PCE instantiates a path on the PCC with an IFIT capability enabled, it is supposed that there are at least two nodes (e.g. starting and ending node) which support it. But if nodes on the path do not support some capabilities, it is not a big issue. Indeed, both Alternate Marking and IOAM documents specify that nodes that do not support a specific functionality will forward the packet without any changes to the data fields and they are simply not considered in the measurement.
Regards, Giuseppe From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 1, 2022 11:26 AM To: 'Dhruv Dhody' <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: 答复: WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-06 Hi, All: I support its adoption. One questions to the authors: Is it enough that only the headend support the defined iFIT capabilities? What’s the procedures when the nodes on the LSP/SR path doesn’t support the defined iFIT capabilities? Aijun Wang China Telecom 发件人: Dhruv Dhody [mailto:[email protected]] 发送时间: 2022年6月24日 16:59 收件人: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 抄送: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 主题: WG Adoption of draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-06 Hi WG, This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit-06. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-pce-pcep-ifit/ Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list. Please respond by Monday 11th July 2022. Please be more vocal during WG polls! Thanks! Dhruv & Julien
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
