Hi Authors, WG, Please refer to this exchange with Benjamin regarding draft-ietf-pce-association-group
-- > Multiple types of associations can exist, each with their own > association identifier space. The definition of the different > association types and their behaviours is outside the scope of this > document. The establishment and removal of the association > relationship can be done on a per LSP basis. An LSP may join > multiple association groups, of different or of the same association > type. > > Is it possible for an LSP to join multiple association groups of the same > type and then for configuration to be assigned to two groups in a manner > that conflicts? What procedure is used for conflict resolution in such a > case? > [[Dhruv Dhody]] This should be handled per association type. I will make sure that future documents that define association types include text for this. -- We should update the I-Ds that define association types to include text on what should be done when an LSP tries to join multiple association group of the same association-type? And if it is allowed, what to do in case of conflicts. There are cases where taking this input into account is straightforward. Multiple association of a given type may either be natively supported (e.g., the diversity I-D already mentions it) or obviously excluded (e.g., the bidirectional association falls into this kind). Sometimes, the resulting behavior may require more specification on failure techniques: e.g., what should a PCC do if requested a 1:3 protection while it only supports dedicated protection? Request the authors to think about this and make suitable update based on the individual association type. The post WGLC I-Ds could be updated as part of directorate review update. Thoughts? Thanks! PCE Chairs _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
