|
Hi, all
I recently read the draft draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-igp
again, here are some comments。
When IGP is used as a PCED protocol, the
capabilities of pce will be advertised periodicly along with other lsa/lsp
information. In my opinion, unless the PCE's capabilities change, there is
no need for the PCC to receive and handle the information again.
Furthermore, if most of the routers in a domain will always have no request to a
PCE, there is also no need for them to maintain the information.
My concern to PCE-DEST-DOMAINS sub-TLV is that we
can't anticipate how many destination domains a PCE can computate path
towards, as a result,the length of space taken by this capality in the
message can't be controlled. So I think if the PCC send a request to a PCE which
can't compute the path for the reason of the destination domain, the PCE can
tell the PCC in the PCrep message the right PCE. One additional quesion: is
it suitable for the PCE to have such ability to know exactly the destination
domain it can compute towards?
Some functions specified in the PATH-CAMP-CAP sub-TLV
are also defined in the PCEP, a clear division should be made.
Cheers,
Zhang Renhai |
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
