Hi,
One question about the new procedure with introduced couple of weeks ago about
delegation.
We are stating that the PCReq/PCRep is required before delegation which is
fine, but what happens if PCE is answering NO-PATH in the PCReq, does it
prevent delegation ?
There is an ambiguous sentence
Fully agree with Stephane on this!
From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
stephane.litkow...@orange.com
Sent: 14 October 2016 13:08
To: pce@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce : Switching from Passive Stateful to
Active Stateful
Hi,
One question about the new proc
Hello Stéphane,
I agree with you. But, we should also let the PCC able to request a path to
another PCE (if configured) or perform a local CSPF computation before
delegating the LSP. Again, it is a policy matter on the PCC to decide what to
do when a PCE reply with a NO-PATH like when a PCE sen
Title: Reply to SG15 Liaison regarding OTNT Standardization Work Plan
Submission Date: 2016-10-14
URL of the IETF Web page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1497/
From: "Scott Mansfield"
To: naotaka.mor...@ntt-at.co.jp,tsbs...@itu.int
Cc: Alvaro Retana ,Deborah Brungard ,Julien
Meuric ,Multi
Hi Olivier,
Since the actions a PCC may take following a PCRep with the NO_PATH object are
similar (but not exactly the same) as when it receives a PCUpd with an empty
ERO, perhaps we can reuse the below text proposed by Stephane by adding the
option of PCC to request a path from another PCE and
