Subject: [Pce] clarification on draft-ietf-pce-pcecp-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 14:51:22 +0100

Dear authors,

I noticed in part 7.3.2. "Handling of the RP object", that the line "If 
the C bit of the RP message carried within a PCReq message is set..." is 
confusing even if I think the C bit refer to the C bit of the optional 
METRIC object. Maybe a simple modification of that line can enhance the 
comprehension.

Regards,
  Richard

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 08:52:43 -0500

Hi,

On Mar 8, 2006, at 8:51 AM, [email-masked] wrote:

> Dear authors,
>
> I noticed in part 7.3.2. "Handling of the RP object", that the line  
> "If the C bit of the RP message carried within a PCReq message is  
> set..." is confusing even if I think the C bit refer to the C bit  
> of the optional METRIC object. Maybe a simple modification of that  
> line can enhance the comprehension.
>

Thanks Richard, this will be clarified in the next revision.

JP.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 15:29:51 +0100

Thanks,

I forget also to ask you how in a PCReq the PCE can distinguish between 
the two BANDWIDTH Objects which one represent the existing LSP and the 
other one the requested bandwidth ?

JP Vasseur wrote:
>> set..." is confusing even if I think the C bit refer to the C bit  of 
>> the optional METRIC object. Maybe a simple modification of that  line 
>> can enhance the comprehension.
>>
> 

-- 
  Richard Douville

  Alcatel Research & Innovation Center
  System and Architecture of Transport Networks, SART
  Route de Nozay
  F-91460 Marcoussis, France.

  Phone : 33 1.69.63.44.31
  Fax   : 33 1.69.63.18.65
  Email : [email-masked]

---

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 09:35:27 -0500

On Mar 8, 2006, at 9:29 AM, [email-masked] wrote:

> Thanks,
>
> I forget also to ask you how in a PCReq the PCE can distinguish  
> between the two BANDWIDTH Objects which one represent the existing  
> LSP and the other one the requested bandwidth ?
>

They have different Object-Type:

Two Object-Type are defined for the BANDWIDTH object:

    o  Requested bandwidth: BANDWIDTH Object-Type is to be assigned by
       IANA (recommended value=1)

    o  Bandwidth of an existing TE LSP for which a reoptimization is
       performed.  BANDWIDTH Object-Type is to be assigned by IANA
       (recommended value=2)

JP.

>>> I noticed in part 7.3.2. "Handling of the RP object", that the  
>>> line  "If the C bit of the RP message carried within a PCReq  
>>> message is  set..." is confusing even if I think the C bit refer  
>>> to the C bit  of the optional METRIC object. Maybe a simple  
>>> modification of that  line can enhance the comprehension.
>>>