Hi Jeff,
Many thanks for your review and comments! It is a good point.
The limitations including MSD and ERLD has been described in detail in RFC8662.
And I need to clarify this in my background. How about adding texts as
following shown.
"[RFC8662] proposes to use entropy labels
Hi Quan,
To clarify,
- draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid is asking for the allocation in the
existing LSP Object Flag Field, after this allocation, there won't be
any flags left.
- as an example of usage of the new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV, you should
site draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position!
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element WG of the IETF.
Title : PCEP Procedures and Protocol Extensions for Using PCE
as a Central Controller (PCECC) for Segment Routing (SR)
Hi Adrian and Julien,
Many thanks for your suggestions!
I fully agree with you. The two wg drafts could be viewed as two
implementations to use the flag carried in LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV.
I will add informative references to those two drafts if necessary. And I also
suggest those two
Thank Martin for the review comments.
This was an error text as there is no reporting for tail-end/reverse LSPs on
egress nodes. Fixed in the latest (rev 14) version.
URL:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-association-bidir-14.txt
Diff:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element WG of the IETF.
Title : Path Computation Element Communication Protocol
(PCEP) Extensions for Associated Bidirectional Label Switched
