Hi, I have a general query on the extension. If the usage is limited to SR Policy, is it not a good idea to encode this within the SR policy association group? I find the use of RP objects to be limiting as it is not used in the PCRpt, PCUpd, and PCInitiate messages.
You are already creating a new TLV called SR Policy Candidate Path Flag TLV at the CP level, you can also create another TLV called SR Policy Redundancy TLV at the SR Policy level and include the fields that you require. Note that the association can be used in PCReq message as well and thus can meet your requirement for just path computation as well. Also I urge you to check out existing mechanism to signal protection before you introduce another TLV for it. Hope this helps! Thanks! Dhruv
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
