Hi all,
RFC5392 is a kind of mechamism and it is already there.
Why we need to define another solution based on some nonexistent assumption?
Fatai
Thanks
- Original Message -
From: JP Vasseur
To: fu.xi...@zte.com.cn
Cc: pce-boun...@ietf.org ; pce@ietf.org ; 王磊
Sent:
Yes, support.
Thanks
Fatai
发件人: pce-boun...@ietf.org [pce-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 JP Vasseur [j...@cisco.com]
发送时间: 2012年3月30日 0:29
到: pce@ietf.org
主题: [Pce] Adopting draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-02 as a new PCE WG
Dear all,
We had a pretty str
Hi Julien and all,
I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.
Thanks
Fatai
-邮件原件-
发件人: julien.meu...@orange.com [mailto:julien.meu...@orange.com]
发送时间: 2012年6月8日 22:42
收件人: Daniel King; Adrian Farrel; Quintin zhao; Fatai Zhang
抄送: pce@ietf.org
主题: IPR Check on draft-ietf
Fatai Zhang
Filename: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-06.txt
Pages : 15
Date: 2012-06-27
Abstract:
The initial effort of PCE WG is specifically focused on MPLS (Multi-
protocol label switching). As a next step, this draft
: Conveying Vendor-Specific Constraints in the Path
Computation Element Protocol
Author(s) : Fatai Zhang
Adrian Farrel
Greg Bernstein
Filename: draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints-06.txt
Pages : 13
Date
Tomonori Takeda
Adrian Farrel
Fatai Zhang
Filename: draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-07.txt
Pages : 19
Date: 2012-07-13
Abstract:
The Path Computation Element (PCE
件人: pce@ietf.org
主题: Re: [Pce] 答复: I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-07.txt
On 07/13/2012 11:02 AM, Fatai Zhang wrote:
Hi all,
A new version has been submitted. Only one change:
Introduce a new PCEP object (SERVER-INDICATION) to replace ERO subobject in
Section 3.5, because one
n Casellas [mailto:ramon.casel...@cttc.es]
发送时间: 2012年7月16日 17:12
收件人: Fatai Zhang
抄送: pce@ietf.org
主题: Re: 答复: [Pce] 答复: I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-07.txt
Hi Fatai,
Thanks for the clarifications, other comments inline
On 07/16/2012 08:47 AM, Fatai Zhang wrote:
Hi Ramon,
For Q1, i
the PCEP
extension defined in this draft and it can understand “SEVER-INDICATION” object.
Note that please don’t mix the PCEP protocol and RSVP protocol or data plane
capability.
For Q2, agree with you.
Thanks
Fatai
发件人: Fatai Zhang
发送时间: 2012年7月17日 15:35
收件人: 'Ramon Casellas
Working Group of the
IETF.
Title : Conveying Vendor-Specific Constraints in the Path
Computation Element Protocol
Author(s) : Fatai Zhang
Adrian Farrel
Greg Bernstein
Filename: draft-ietf-pce
Element Protocol
Author(s) : Fatai Zhang
Adrian Farrel
Greg Bernstein
Filename: draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints-08.txt
Pages : 10
Date: 2012-08-30
Abstract:
The Path
Hi Ramon and Julien,
Thanks for your useful comments.
I agree with Julien and Ramon. We of course need to investigate which way is a
preference for PCE WG.
I think if it could integrate GMPLS, I would suggest moving to that direction,
because GMPLS is generic and covers MPLS as what Julien sa
Hi Oscar, Ed and all,
I totally agree with Oscar.
I think we should follow the regular procedures of PCE WG (IETF as well) to
define the foundation work first including FWK, requirement, applicability
before dropping into the solution stuff.
Guidance from WG chairs on this stateful PCE work mu
Hi Jan,
>The PCE is not limited to path computation only. The PCE can set other LSP
>parameters as well: RFC5440 defines objects for bandwidth, setup & hold
>priorities, the local protection flag, etc. More LSP parameters have been
>added in subsequent RFCs and drafts.
[Fatai] I have to in
and whether this
“delegation” is in the scope of the existing charter).
Best Regards
Fatai
发件人: Jan Medved (jmedved) [mailto:jmed...@cisco.com]
发送时间: 2012年11月10日 0:27
收件人: Fatai Zhang
抄送: Oscar González de Dios; pce@ietf.org
主题: Re: [Pce] Questions about stateful PCE, relation to WG charter and opin
Crabbe [mailto:e...@google.com]
发送时间: 2012年11月12日 11:59
收件人: Fatai Zhang
抄送: Jan Medved (jmedved); pce@ietf.org
主题: Re: [Pce] 答复: Questions about stateful PCE, relation to WG charter and
opinion about stateful PCE
We currently appear to be involved in some sort of pre-fiat working group
process
(jmedved) [mailto:jmed...@cisco.com]
发送时间: 2012年11月12日 13:09
收件人: Fatai Zhang
抄送: Oscar González de Dios; pce@ietf.org
主题: Re: [Pce] Questions about stateful PCE, relation to WG charter and opinion
about stateful PCE
Fatai,
On Nov 11, 2012, at 6:56 PM, Fatai Zhang wrote:
Hi Jan,
You said:
=>
, Fatai Zhang wrote:
Hi Jan,
Hi Fatai,
>The PCE is not limited to path computation only. The PCE can set other LSP
>parameters as well: RFC5440 defines objects for bandwidth, setup & hold
>priorities, the local protection flag, etc. More LSP parameters have been
>added in sub
Hi Adrian,
Very interesting and useful draft.
A few small comments from me for discussion.
(1) What Is Topology Information?
Should SRLG/SRG information be mentioned?
(2) Does H-PCE Solve The Internet?
It is obviously that the answer is "NO". However, another question could be
addressed: how m
Yes/Support.
Thanks
Fatai
发件人: pce-boun...@ietf.org [pce-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 JP Vasseur (jvasseur)
[jvass...@cisco.com]
发送时间: 2013年3月12日 4:13
到: pce@ietf.org
主题: [Pce] Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-service-aware as a new WG document ?
Dear all,
Yes/Support as a co-author.
Thanks
Fatai
发件人: pce-boun...@ietf.org [pce-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 JP Vasseur (jvasseur)
[jvass...@cisco.com]
发送时间: 2013年3月12日 4:17
到: pce@ietf.org
主题: [Pce] Adoption of draft-lee-pce-wson-rwa-ext as a new PCE WG Document ?
D
Hi Jan,
I would say this draft is useful and I am in favor of this draft, even though I
know this is not an official poll.
Best Regards
Fatai
-Original Message-
From: pce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jan
Medved (jmedved)
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 20
Hi Julien,
I am not aware of any IPR to this draft.
Note that I think the IPR that you mentioned below was removed (because the
disclosure was wrong).
Best Regards
Fatai
-Original Message-
From: Julien Meuric [mailto:julien.meu...@orange.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 5:13 P
Hi all,
Definitely, Yes for both.
Best Regards
Fatai
From: pce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of JP
Vasseur (jvasseur)
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2013 4:20 PM
To: Ina Minei; pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] Stateful PCE applicability
Thanks Ina - good question : WG,
Hi all,
I think a new object type could be better and simple.
Thanks
Fatai
发件人: pce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Ramon Casellas
发送时间: 2013年7月30日 17:32
收件人: Jonathan Hardwick; pce@ietf.org
主题: Re: [Pce] Comments on draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-08
On 07/30/2013 11:0
Support.
Fatai
-邮件原件-
发件人: pce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Julien Meuric
发送时间: 2013年8月1日 17:28
收件人: pce@ietf.org
主题: [Pce] Poll for Adoption of draft-zhang-pce-stateful-pce-app-04
Hi all.
Following the poll in the room during yesterday meeting, we would like to g
Support as co-author.
Fatai
-邮件原件-
发件人: pce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Julien Meuric
发送时间: 2013年8月1日 17:31
收件人: pce@ietf.org
主题: [Pce] Poll for Adoption of draft-zhang-pce-hierarchy-extensions-04
Hi again.
Following the poll in the room during yesterday meeting,
No, I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.
Best Regards
Fatai
-Original Message-
From: Julien Meuric [mailto:julien.meu...@orange.com]
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 8:36 PM
To: draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constrai...@tools.ietf.org
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: Last IPR Chec
Hi all,
I think you noticed that this draft has been expired for quite long time.
I think it is time to move forward this draft.
If you have any comments, please share to the authors or the list.
Best Regards
Fatai
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.o
Support as co-author.
Best Regards
Fatai
-Original Message-
From: pce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Julien
Meuric
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 10:18 PM
To: pce@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] Poll for Adoption of draft-zhang-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls-03
Support.
Best Regards
Fatai
-Original Message-
From: pce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Julien
Meuric
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 10:14 PM
To: pce@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] Poll for Adoption of draft-crabbe-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-03
Hi all.
Followin
Protocol (PCEP) for Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering
Authors : Eiji Oki
Tomonori Takeda
Adrian Farrel
Fatai Zhang
Filename: draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-08.txt
Pages
Support.
Thanks
Fatai
-邮件原件-
发件人: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 JP Vasseur (jvasseur)
发送时间: 2014年3月4日 18:52
收件人: pce@ietf.org
主题: [Pce] Adoption of draft-ali-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp-03.txt as PCE WG
Document ?
Dear WG,
As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today whe
Support.
Thanks
Fatai
-邮件原件-
发件人: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Julien Meuric
发送时间: 2014年3月5日 2:12
收件人: pce@ietf.org
主题: [Pce] Adoption of draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations as PCE WG
Document?
Dear WG,
As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today, we had some suppo
Support.
Thanks
Fatai
-邮件原件-
发件人: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 JP Vasseur (jvasseur)
发送时间: 2014年3月4日 17:48
收件人: pce@ietf.org
主题: [Pce] Adoption of draft-lopez-pce-pceps-02 as PCE WG Document ?
Dear WG,
As discussed during the PCE WG meeting today where we had good support fo
Hi all,
No, I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this document.
Thanks
Fatai
-邮件原件-
发件人: Julien Meuric [mailto:julien.meu...@orange.com]
发送时间: 2014年7月22日 23:28
收件人: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensi...@tools.ietf.org
抄送: pce@ietf.org
主题: Last IPR Check on draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-p
Hi Oscar,
I don't think we need to ask early allocation of code points, which is for the
special case (ie., early allocation is not the normal procedure) and the right
values will be allocated during RFC publication stage (ie., the clash will
disappear) .
The authors of this draft including me
Hi Adrian,
I think the steps you proposed really make sense.
I have one comment for clarification on step (2a) and (4), did you mean that it
only needs to use "TBD" rather than the suggested values?
In addtion, for the new drafts (or non-existing drafts with clash), can I
re-order your steps
Hi,
Sorry, I should say (2b) and (4), :-)
Best Regards
Fatai
-Original Message-
From: Fatai Zhang
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 4:32 PM
To: 'adr...@olddog.co.uk'; pce@ietf.org
Cc: pce-cha...@tools.ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Pce] Preaching about code points in drafts
Management and Control of DWDM optical interface
> parameters and GMPLS protocols that need to be updated, which might be
> relevant to your project, but this work in CCAMP is still in individual drafts
> stage. We would like to receive your input.
> ====
Hi all,
As discussed in BA meeting, the authors are going to refresh this draft, which
has been expired for long time.
WG review and any comments would be appreciated.
Thanks
Fatai
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/l
Hi Stephane,
Could you clarify what is interoperability issue in multivendor environment
(multivendor in one administrative domain?)?
Do you mean there is interoperability issue when vendor 1 supports stateless
PCE and vendor 2 supports stateful PCE?
Thanks
Fatai
发件人: Pce [mailto:pce-bo
Adrian Farrel
Fatai Zhang
Filename: draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-09.txt
Pages : 18
Date: 2016-04-25
Abstract:
The Path Computation Element (PCE) provides path computation
functions in support of traffic
Hi all,
I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this document.
(Sorry, if my response did not go the list because of mail server problem).
Thanks
Fatai
发件人: Jonathan Hardwick [mailto:jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com]
发送时间: 2016年8月24日 19:30
收件人: pce@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-...@i
Hi all,
I share the same understanding as Dieter and Francesco.
I don’t see much value of the stateful path computation, because the computed
path cannot be guaranteed and it brings much overhead as Francesco pointed.
I think it makes sense if the resource of the stateful path should be reserve
from the control plane perspective rather than reserve the resource on
the data plane through SMP mechanism).
Thanks
Fatai
发件人: Igor Bryskin
发送时间: 2016年11月9日 23:56
收件人: Francesco Lazzeri; Fatai Zhang; Dieter Beller
抄送: m...@ietf.org; CCAMP (cc...@ietf.org); Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE);
pce
:leeyo...@huawei.com>>, Ramon
Casellas mailto:ramon.casel...@cttc.es>>, Fatai Zhang
mailto:zhangfa...@huawei.com>>, Cyril Margaria
mailto:cyril.marga...@gmail.com>>, Greg Bernstein
mailto:gr...@grotto-networking.com>>, Oscar
Gonzalez de Dios
mailto:oscar.gonzalez
Hi Loa,
Thanks for your effort.
I think you missed the leading actor: CCAMP WG, :-).
Forwarded to CCAMP as well.
Thanks
Fatai
-邮件原件-
发件人: Teas [mailto:teas-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Loa Andersson
发送时间: 2017年3月17日 9:17
收件人: draft-izh-ccamp-flexe-...@ietf.org; mpls-cha...@ietf.org; pce
Yes/support.
Thanks
Fatai
发件人: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Jonathan Hardwick
发送时间: 2017年6月1日 20:25
收件人: pce@ietf.org
抄送: draft-dhodylee-pce-stateful-h...@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org
主题: [Pce] Poll for adoption: draft-dhodylee-pce-stateful-hpce
All,
This is the start of a two wee
Hi,
No, I am not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.
Thanks
Fatai
-邮件原件-
发件人: Julien Meuric [mailto:julien.meu...@orange.com]
发送时间: 2018年9月7日 0:01
收件人: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensi...@ietf.org
抄送: pce@ietf.org
主题: IPR Check on draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions
Dear
Hi Dhruv,
When I clicked the link you provided, it went to
https://datatracker..ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/agenda-103-pce/, and it
showed something wrong.
I think the correct link should be:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/agenda-103-pce/
Thanks
Fatai
发件人: Pce [mai
OK, thanks.
It seems that it is mischievous only on my machine, ☺
Thanks
Fatai
发件人: Belotti, Sergio (Nokia - IT/Vimercate) [mailto:sergio.belo...@nokia.com]
发送时间: 2018年10月25日 17:45
收件人: Dhruv Dhody ; Fatai Zhang
抄送: pce@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org
主题: RE: [Pce] Building the PCE Agenda
Jon, Thanks for your great contribution to PCE WG!
Congratulations to Dhruv (and Adrian)!
I think PCE WG would be the most popular WG of RTG since it is the only one
with three chairs and Adrian – one of the founders of PCE WG, ☺
Thanks
Fatai
From: Pce mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org>> On Beh
.
==
Thanks
Fatai
Advanced Technology Department
Wireline Networking Business Unit
Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
Huawei Base, Bantian, Longgang,
Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China
Tel: +86-755-28972912
Fax: +86-755-28972935
Network work group Fatai Zhang
Hi PCEers
We have a draft (draft-zhang-pce-reqs-for-tdm-00.txt) in the process. This
draft describes some requirements for applying Path Computation Element (PCE)
in Time-Division Multiplexing (TDM) networks.
I think GMPLS-based TDM networks can be regarded as sub-set of GMPLS networks
(for e
Yes, I support.
Fatai
- Original Message -
From: julien.meu...@orange-ftgroup.com
To: pce@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, September 07, 2009 4:19 PM
Subject: [Pce] Poll on draft-lee-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-05.txt
Hello PCE members.
As you probably now, CCAMP has already
Hi all,
I am also wondering what is PCE.
Can PCE give a route or routes to someone unsolicitedly without path
computation request (PCReq) from PCC?
Thanks
Fatai
Advanced Technology Department
Wireline Networking Business Unit
Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
Huawei Base, Bantian, Longgang,
S
Hi Cyril,
What a coincidence to see your draft after we just submited our draft
(draft-zhang-pce-pcep-extensions-for-sdh-00.txt) [draft-zhang-pcep-ext].
Great minds think alike. Happy to see that happened.
Hope you can spare some time to review [draft-zhang-pcep-ext]. We are looking
forward t
- Original Message -
From: "Margaria, Cyril (NSN - DE/Munich)"
To: "ext Fatai Zhang"
Cc: ;
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 9:09 PM
Subject: RE: [Pce] New draft: draft-margaria-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-00
Hi Fatai,
I am also happy to see work going in this dir
y, January 21, 2010 2:31 PM
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-zhang-pce-udp-for-pcecp-00
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-zhang-pce-udp-for-pcecp-00.txt has been
> successfuly submitted by Fatai Zhang and posted to the IETF repository.
>
> Filename: draft-zhang-pce-udp
control, overall simplicity of UDP compared to TCP etc.,
Thanks
Fatai
- Original Message -
From: JP Vasseur
To: Fatai Zhang ; Jun Sun
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Pce] New Version Notification for
draft-zhang-pce-udp-for
Hi PCEers,
To respond to the call from JP, I trigger this discussion and hope you can
review this draft and give your comments or suggestions.
Note that this draft (draft-zhang-pce-pcep-extensions-for-gmpls) is used to
replace another draft (draft-zhang-pce-pcep-extensions-for-sdh), which was
Hi All,
We just submitted an updated version of this draft:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-02.txt
The major updates are as follows:
(1) Added Section 3.3 to address unnumbered endpoints
(2) Added Section 3.4 to address Asymmetric Bandwidth Path Computation
(3) Updated Sectio
Hi Julien,
Yes, support.
Best Regards
Fatai
- Original Message -
From: "Julien Meuric"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 12:10 AM
Subject: [Pce] Adoption of draft-margaria-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-01?
> Hi all.
>
> During the PCE meeting in Maastricht, we had a consensus
Yes/Support.
Best Regards
Fatai
- Original Message -
From: Giovanni Martinelli
To: JP Vasseur
Cc: olivier.dug...@orange-ftgroup.com ; pce@ietf.org ; Quintin Zhao
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Pce] Adopting draft-king-pce-inter-area-as-applica
Hi Ramon and Christian,
I agree with Ramon that we should refine the description on the Label format
(Lebel,Label_Set, Suggested_Label) based on the different cases in PCReq and
PCRep messages (e.g. Endpoints, E2E constraint, ERO, SVEC).
Thanks
Fatai
Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
Huawe
Hi PCEers,
You may notice that this draft is expired and I plan to update it.
If you have any suggestions or comments, please send them to me or to the list.
Thanks
Fatai
Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
Huawei Base, Bantian, Longgang,
Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China
Tel: +86-755-28972912
Fax: +86-
Hi Christian,
Thanks for your comments.
Could you explain a little more about what are requirements for the
VENOR-CONSTRAINT TLV?
Why VENOR-CONSTRAINT object can not meet these requirements?
How many (and which) objects should be extended to include VENOR-CONSTRAINT TLV?
Thanks
Fatai
Hu
icked is currently unused,
but may be assigned in the near future, and then follows the general problem
of updating not just future software (which is simple),
but also existing software already delivered to customers (which is not so
simple).
Christian
________
F
Hi Ramon,
If I understand you correctly, do you meant that you prefer "only the
VENDOR-CONSTRAINT object" to "one extra TLV"?
Thanks
Fatai
Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
Huawei Base, Bantian, Longgang,
Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China
Tel: +86-755-28972912
Fax: +86-755-28972935
- Original
Hi Ramon,
OK, thanks a lot.
Any more opinions from the WG?
Thanks
Fatai
Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
Huawei Base, Bantian, Longgang,
Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China
Tel: +86-755-28972912
Fax: +86-755-28972935
- Original Message -
From: Ramon Casellas
To: Fatai Zhang ; pce
71 matches
Mail list logo
