Subject: [Pce] draft-zhao-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures

From: Vishwas Manral <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:12:06 -0800

Hi Quintin,

I was seeing the "PCE Sequence Object", why can a sequence not have either
IPv4 and IPv6 identifiers for PCE in the same object?

We shouls allow a sequence of PCE's with IPv4 or IPv6 addresses.

It can easily be done by adding a type field before every time we add
he address.

       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       | Object-Class  |   OT  |Res|P|I|   Object Length (bytes)       |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       | Addr type     |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
       |                    IPv4 address for root PCE                  |
       +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Thanks,
Vishwas

---

From: "Daniel King" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:49:31 -0000

Hi Vishwas, 

Good point. 

This is mentioned in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-monitoring-05. Specifically, where
a sequence of PCE IDs is required:

a. put each PCE ID in a separate object
b. allow a sequence of objects

So, if we have to have a sequence of PCEs it would be better to define the
sequences to go in the messages. I completely agree that we should be able
to freely mix IPv4 and IPv6 on an end-to-end path. The addresses will not be
mixed within a domain, but successive domains might use different address
formats. 

I'd think that the message format we planned to have:

<PCE-SEQUENCE> ...

Should now be:

(<branch-delimiter>
  <PCE-ID> ...) ...

Br, Dan.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Vishwas Manral
Sent: 16 December 2009 20:12
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Pce] draft-zhao-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures

Hi Quintin,

Thanks,
Vishwas
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce