Christian and all, Repeating the gist of my comments on the PLE Signaling draft<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-schmutzer-pals-ple-signaling-00> at the MPLS WG session in Prague today.
I think that Endpoint-ID defined in Section 5.5. of this draft is not needed. If you want the endpoints of a PLE to be aware of the remote AC, you can use the generalized PWId FEC<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8077#section-6.2> a.k.a. FEC-129) for this purpose. I also think that your reference to Path Trace Identifier in OTN is not really accurate: 1. This construct has been already defined for SONET and SDH 2. Mismatch of Path Trace Identifier, if enabled, results in killing he traffic (generation of downstream AIS) in both SONET/SDH and OTN. * I have not found any action on mismatch of Endpoint-IDs in the draft * Mismatch of AII in FEC-129 would result in failure to establish a PW. Hopefully these notes will be useful. Regards, Sasha Disclaimer This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of Ribbon Communications Inc. and its Affiliates that is confidential and/or proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and then delete all copies, including any attachments.
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
