...@cisco.com
ȋ: pce-boun...@ietf.org
2011-07-25 ςΧ 08:30
ʕȋ
͵ hechen0...@gmail.com
ˍ
pce@ietf.org
ַ̢
Re: [Pce] request timeslot for draft-wang-pce-inter-as-extentions-01
Thanks for your feed-back. It would be interesting to hear from the WG
Salut Cyril, all
On 08/02/2011 09:55 AM, Margaria, Cyril (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
Hi,
If I understand correctly the problem PCE (i+1) has complete knowledge
the inter AS link (i+1) - i but not the i-(i+1) link properties
(upstream).
Or seen the other way round, the PCE(i) does not have
Hi Ramon,
From: ext Ramon Casellas [mailto:ramon.casel...@cttc.es]
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 10:28 AM
To: pce@ietf.org; Margaria, Cyril (NSN - DE/Munich)
Subject: Re: [Pce] request timeslot for
draft-wang-pce-inter-as-extentions-01
Salut Cyril, all
On 08/02/2011 09:55 AM
El 02/08/2011 10:46, Margaria, Cyril (NSN - DE/Munich) escribió:
Hi Ramon,
*From:*ext Ramon Casellas [mailto:ramon.casel...@cttc.es] **
This should solve the problem mentioned except in the case the
algorithm require to know the link properties in both direction at the
same time, but the
: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 1:20 AM
Subject: Re: [Pce] request timeslot for draft-wang-pce-inter-as-extentions-01
Hi,
On Jul 25, 2011, at 11:16 AM, fu.xi...@zte.com.cn wrote:
Hi JP,
IMO, we don't need two methods. The method of extending IGP may impact on
large aspect
El 25/07/2011 19:20, JP Vasseur escribió:
So let the WG decide which one of the methods is most appropriate
Thanks.
Dear PCErs,
Just my (subjective) opinion:
IIUC, the motivation behind this draft is the lack of upstream TE
attributes in inter-AS links (due to the lack of proxy), which is
: JP Vasseur
To: fu.xi...@zte.com.cn
Cc: pce-boun...@ietf.org ; pce@ietf.org ; 王磊
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 1:20 AM
Subject: Re: [Pce] request timeslot for draft-wang-pce-inter-as-extentions-01
Hi,
On Jul 25, 2011, at 11:16 AM, fu.xi...@zte.com.cn wrote:
Hi JP,
IMO, we don't
Thanks for your feed-back. It would be interesting to hear from the WG if indeed
we need two methods. To each specific problem we can certainly find a number
of way to solve it, but let's try to make sure that we do not specify a new
technique
if we can use what exist today.
WG ?
Thanks.
JP.
Hi, Xuerong and PCEers
I have read the draft. It provides an alternate method that extends
BRPC and PCEP protocol to get TE information of Inter-AS biderectional
links. In my opinion, It is useful for the smooth upgrade of existing
MPLS/GMPLS networks to support Inter-AS bidirectional path
送
JP Vasseur j...@cisco.com, pce@ietf.org, pce-boun...@ietf.org
主题
Re: request timeslot for draft-wang-pce-inter-as-extentions-01
Hi Wang,
I read the draft. It is interesting but one point isn't clear for me.
Why couldn't we extend routing protocol to make border nodes get the
bidirectional
Hi Wang,
I read the draft. It is interesting but one point isn't clear for me.
Why couldn't we extend routing protocol to make border nodes get the
bidirectional inter-AS links?
Thanks,
Frederick
Hi JP and PCEers,
Thank you for the promotion.We would like to trigger the
discussion, and
11 matches
Mail list logo
