hi
comment on this doc.
4.5. Inclusion of Area IDs in Request
The knowledge of the areas in which the source and destination lie
would allow selection of appropriate cooperating PCEs.
=> so is there an assumption that the PCE-Area ID knowledge is available -
how come ?
A PCE may not
be able to determine the location of the source and destination and
in such a case it would be useful that a PCC indicates the source and
destination area IDs.
=> not sure to see the reasoning - i guess the initial PCE referred to
here is an intermediate PCE that does not have any visibility of the
source/destination areas and potentially more - the whole problem in this
sentence is the interpretation of the term - location -
For that purpose the request message MUST support the inclusion of
the source and destination area IDs. Note that this information could
be learned by the PCC through configuration.
=> how to be sure that the local area PCE is going only to be contacted by
local area PCC's - we're entering into a chicken egg problem, from one
side mandate knowledge of source/destination area but on the other there
is no guarantee about interpretation of this information before knowing
the PCC - area ID relationship
4.6. Area Inclusion/Exclusion
In some situations it may be useful to include one or more area(s) in
the path.
=> for inter-area it is certainly true that the actual path will cross
multiple areas but i wonder whether what you mean is not the request
includes one or more areas to be followed by the path to be computed
It may also be useful to exclude one or more area(s) from
the path (e.g. request for a path between LSRs in two stub areas
connected to the same ABR(s), which must not cross the backbone
area). Hence the request message MUST allow indicating a set of one
or more area(s) that must be explicitly included in the path, and a
set of one or more area(s) that must be explicitly excluded from the
path.
=> be prepared to incorporate a loop avoidance mechanism, in case the
request will have to cross multiple PCEs
other comments to follow
- d.
JP Vasseur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22/11/2006 15:51
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: [Pce] Working Group Last Call on
draft-ietf-pce-pcecp-interarea-reqs-04.txt
Dear WG,
A new revision of draft-ietf-pce-pcecp-interarea-reqs (rev -04) has
been posted that addresses the remaining issues/comments.
This email initiates a Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-pce-
pcecp-interarea-reqs-04.txt. The last call will end on December 8th
at noon EST.
Please send your comments to the mailing list.
Thanks.
JP.
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
