Dear WG
I support WG adoption of this draft.
PCECC RFC 9050 provides and important SBI simplification design by
extending PCEP to support combining the PCE and SDN controller into a
combined PCECC centralized controller by introducing a new CCI object.
This draft extends RFC 9050 PCECC to provi
I support adoption.
Thanks
Gyan
On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 5:16 AM Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> Hi WG,
>
> This email begins the WG adoption poll for
> draft-koldychev-pce-operational-09
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-koldychev-pce-operational/
>
> Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG
I support publication.
Very useful feature to extend vendor specific information in pcep.
Thank you
Gyanq
On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 9:18 AM Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> Hi WG,
>
> This email starts a 2-weeks working group last call for
> draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-vendor-03.
>
> https://www.ietf.o
Dear PCE WG
I support progressing this draft to publication.
This draft provides immense value to the operator community for deployment
of RSVP-TE or segment routing with this new PCEP extension for a generic
optional color TLV to carry color attribute part of tuple for SR policy by
stateful PCE
I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclosed
in accordance with IETF IPR rules.
Thanks
Gyan
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 3:53 PM Andrew Stone (Nokia) wrote:
> Hi Authors,
>
>
>
> In preparation for WGLC on this draft, we'd like all authors and
> contributors to confirm
Dear PCE WG
As co-author I support publication.
Thank you
Gyan
On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 11:51 PM Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> Hi WG,
>
> This email starts a 2-weeks working group last call
> for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-04.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color/
>
> Please in
Dear WG
Sorry for the late reply.
I support WG adoption of this draft and am willing to work on the draft.
Few comments after reviewing the draft.
For SR-MPLS there are two label rangers SRLB and SRGB. So you may want to
have a label control space TLV with different IANA registry for sub TLV f
Dear WG,
I support WG adoption of this work. This work has had a long history and
has matured and I believe is ready to be progressed. I believe that
PCEP-LS would be valuable for operators and is not much change if using PCE
CC centralized SDN controller.
Thanks
Gyan
On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at
___
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
--
<http://www.verizon.com/>
*Gyan Mishra*
*Network Solutions A**rchitect *
*Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com *
*M 301 502-1347*
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
and uses ELP so I think explaining why ERLD
computation is not necessary specifically when using ELP flag.
Thanks
<http://www.verizon.com/>
*Gyan Mishra*
*Network Solutions A**rchitect *
*Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com *
*M 301 502-1347*
On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 10:53 PM wrote:
explain why computing the ERLD would add complexity in
the ELI/EL insertion process and why a new mechanism using the ELP is
necessary. Also why the ERLD computation is not required as described in
RFC 8662.
Thanks
Gyan
<http://www.verizon.com/>
*Gyan Mishra*
*Network Solutions A**rchitect *
as "PCEP extension
for SR Policy Candidate paths" or "PCEP SR Extension for Candidate paths"
Kind Regards
<http://www.verizon.com/>
*Gyan Mishra*
*Network Solutions A**rchitect *
*Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com *
*M 301 502-1347*
On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 5:29 AM Dh
I support the adoption of pcep extension to support circuit style sr
policy. I don’t see any issues with the draft that need to be fixed and I
am willing to work on the draft.
Thanks
<http://www.verizon.com/>
*Gyan Mishra*
*Network Solutions A**rchitect *
*Email gyan.s.mis...@veriz
I support WG adoption.
Thanks
Gyan
On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 12:50 PM Dhruv Dhody wrote:
> Hi WG,
>
> This email begins the WG adoption poll for draft-chen-pce-bier-11.
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-pce-bier/
>
> Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reas
e this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
> modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
> ___
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6/
>
> ___
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
--
<http://www.verizon.com/>
*Gyan Mishra*
*Network Solutions A*
;
> ___
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
--
<http://www.verizon.com/>
*Gyan Mishra*
*Network Solutions A**rchitect *
*Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com *
*M 301 502-1347*
_
Reviewer: Gyan Mishra
Review result: Not Ready
This draft provides the Yang model for PCEP.
The Yang model should include all PCEP related extensions and which from
reading the draft I see missing some major components that should be included
detailed in this review.
Minor issues:
Normative
> Please be more vocal during WG polls!
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv & Julien
> ___
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
--
<http://www.verizon.com/>
*Gyan Mishra*
*Network So
ce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
--
<http://www.verizon.com/>
*Gyan Mishra*
*Network Solutions A**rchitect *
*Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com *
*M 301 502-1347*
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
respond by Monday 19th Sept 2022.
>
> Please be more vocal during WG polls!
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv & Julien
> ___
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
--
<http://www.
gt; Please respond by Monday 11th July 2022.
>
> Please be more vocal during WG polls!
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv & Julien
> ___
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
--
<http://www.
always, review >> comments and nits are most welcome. >> >> The WG LC will
> end on Wednesday 25th May 2022. >> >> A general reminder to the WG to be
> more vocal during the >> last-call/adoption and help u
> s unclog our queues :) >> >> Thanks, >> Dhruv & Julien >
___
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
--
<http://www.verizon.com/>
*Gyan Mishra*
*Network Solutions A**rchitect *
*Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com *
*M 301 502-1347*
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Hi Ketan
Please see in-line below Gyan2.
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 10:32 AM Ketan Talaulikar
wrote:
> Hi Gyan,
>
> Please check inline below with KT2.
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 1:07 AM Gyan Mishra wrote:
>
>> Hi Ketan
>>
>> Please see in-line
>>
Hi Ketan
Please see in-line
Thanks
On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 7:10 AM Ketan Talaulikar
wrote:
> Hi Gyan,
>
> Please check inline below.
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 10:08 AM Gyan Mishra
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Ketan
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 4, 202
; Dhruv & Julien
>> ___
>> Pce mailing list
>> Pce@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>>
> ___
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
--
<http://www.verizon.com/>
*Gyan Mishra*
*Network Solutions A**rchitect *
*Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com *
*M 301 502-1347*
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
hould be posted to the list.
>
> Please respond by Monday 11th April 2022.
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv & Julien
> ___
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
--
<http://www.verizo
Please respond by Monday 21st Feb 2022.
>
> Have a great weekend.
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv & Julien
> ___
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
--
<http://www.verizon.com
draft submission deadline.
>>>
>>> Please indicate your support or concern for this draft. If you are
>>> opposed to the progression of the draft to RFC, please articulate your
>>> concern. If you support it, please indic
s unclog our queues :)
>
> Thanks,
> Dhruv & Julien
>
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-vn-association/
>
> ___
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
> ___
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
--
<http://www.verizon.com/>
*Gyan Mishra*
*Network Solutions A**rchitect *
*Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com *
*M 301 502-1347*
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
sions for GMPLS Networks
>
>
>
> ---
>
>
>
> 5.1
>
>
>
> s/introduced as flag/introduced as flags/
>
>
>
> ---
>
>
>
> 5.2
>
>
>
> s/attributes include bandwidth/attributes including bandwidth/
>
> s/modified LSP during/modif
___
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
--
<http://www.verizon.com/>
*Gyan Mishra*
*Network Solutions A**rchitect *
*Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com *
*M 301 502-1347*
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
__
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
--
<http://www.verizon.com/>
*Gyan Mishra*
*Network Solutions A**rchitect *
*Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com *
*M 301 502-1347*
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Perfect!
Thanks
Gyan
On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 8:01 AM Adrian Farrel wrote:
> -22 captures it. Thanks,
>
> Adrian
>
>
>
> *From:* Gyan Mishra
> *Sent:* 27 August 2021 06:52
> *To:* adr...@olddog.co.uk
> *Cc:* Dhruv Dhody ; draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep...@ietf.o
EP speaker that receives any of the objects that are part of the
>feature when use of the feature has not been agreed, will as
>described in .
>
>
>
> Of course, this is “business as usual” but the reviewer of the text will
> not necessarily know this.
>
>
>
&g
ing
> deployed equipment?
>
> - How will you judge the success or failure of the experiment,
> and when?
>
> - What follow-up to the experiment do you propose?
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Adrian
>
>
>
> *From:* Gyan Mishra
> *Sent:* 05 J
for PCEP security
> capability support in the PCE discovery -
> draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support-05
>
>
>
> This begins a 3-week WG Last Call, ending on August 4th, 2021, for
> draft-ietf-lsr-pce-discovery-security-support. Please indicate your support
> or obj
eriment do you propose?
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Adrian
>
>
>
> *From:* Gyan Mishra
> *Sent:* 05 July 2021 07:43
> *To:* Adrian Farrel ; Dhruv Dhody ;
> draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep...@ietf.org; pce-chairs ;
> pce@ietf.org
> *Subject:* draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls nex
he lesser
> the number of protocols, the better for simplifying network operation.
>
> Thanks,
> Siva
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 2:43 AM Gyan Mishra wrote:
>
>>
>> Dear PCE WG,
>>
>>
>> We presented the PCEP-LS [1] I-D [2] in the IETF 110 with a
aterials/slides-110-pce-42-pcep-ls-00.pdf
[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls/
==
<http://www.verizon.com/>
*Gyan Mishra*
*Network Solutions Architect *
*Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com *
*M 301 502-1347*
--
<http://www.verizon.com/>
*Gyan Mishra*
by May 31.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Dhruv & Julien
> >
>
> _______
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
--
<http://www.verizon.com/>
*Gyan Mishra*
*Network
I am interested in working on this draft.
Thanks
Gyan
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 11:21 PM Gyan Mishra wrote:
>
> I support WG adoption of this important draft for instantiation of ECMP
> multipath by encoding multiple segments lists of an SR candidate path.
>
> Gyan
>
> On
___
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
--
<http://www.verizon.com/>
*Gyan Mishra*
*Network Solutions A**rchitect *
*Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com *
*M 301 502-1347*
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
ways being considered as valuable tools for
> solving our issues in telco’s multi-domain environment.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gyan Mishra
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 18, 2021 11:36 AM
> *To:* pce@ietf.org; draft-dhodylee-pce-pce
work.
>
>
>
> Best Regards
>
>
>
> Aijun Wang
>
> China Telecom
>
>
>
> *From:* pce-boun...@ietf.org *On Behalf Of *???(Naas
> Transformation ?)
> *Sent:* Friday, April 2, 2021 9:14 AM
> *To:* Gyan Mishra ; pce@ietf.org;
> draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep.
Hi Gyan,
>
>
> We have implemented PCEP in the past.
>
> This experimental upgrade of PCEP to enable direct TE updates to PCE is
> worth to try and we'd be interested in the implementation of this work.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Bin
>
>
> *From:* Gyan Mishra
;>>
>>>>
>>>> I think that BSID is a concept that applies equally well to RSVP-TE and
>>>> SR-TE. There are many use-cases for RSVP tunnels having a BSID and we
>>>> definitely DO NOT want to limit it to just SR-TE.
>>>>
>>>&
hat BSID is a concept that applies equally well to RSVP-TE and
> SR-TE. There are many use-cases for RSVP tunnels having a BSID and we
> definitely DO NOT want to limit it to just SR-TE.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike.
>
>
>
> *From:* Pce *On Behalf Of * Gyan Mis
Sivabalan wrote:
> Hi Gyan,
>
> This ID is all about signaling BSID for RSVP-TE tunnels and SR policies
> via PCEP.
>
> Please do not confuse signaling aspects with how BSID is used.
>
> There is no change required in the ID.
>
> Thanks,
> Siva
>
>
> O
yan,
>
> BSID can be allocated for RSVP-TE as well, and yes, there are use-cases
> for that. The proposed PCEP extension is equally applicable to both SR-TE
> and RSVP-TE.
>
> Thanks,
> Siva
>
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 1:40 PM Gyan Mishra wrote:
>
>>
>>
>
gt;> We have always tried our best to maintain consistency between RSVP-TE and
>> SR in PCEP.
>>
>> Now, if one considers the Replication segment as an LSP operation, IMHO
>> it needs to be built on RFC 8623 P2MP LSP operations. The current approach
>> does not build on RFC 8623 instead uses the multi-path technique (re
ould not be distributed, used or copied without
> authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender
> and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that
> have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
> ___
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
>
> ___
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
--
<http://www.verizon.com/>
*Gyan Mishra*
*Network Solutions A**rchitect *
*Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com *
*M 301 502-1347*
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
<http://www.verizon.com/>
*Gyan Mishra*
*Network Solutions A**rchitect *
*Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com *
*M 301 502-1347*
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
controller-12
>
> Please let us know if there is any further comments.
>
> Thank you!
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Gyan Mishra via Datatracker [mailto:nore...@ietf.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 7:03 AM
> > To: gen-...@ietf.org
>
oc/html/draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03>>>
>> >>> This is a small draft that extends the flags in the LSP Objects by
>> >>> defining a new LSP-EXTENDED-FLAG TLV. Note that the existing
>> >>> sub-registry "LSP Object Flag Field" is almost fully assigned.
>>
Reviewer: Gyan Mishra
Review result: Almost Ready
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
hat needs to be fixed before or after adoption?
> > > Are you willing to work on this draft? Review comments should be
> > > posted to the list.
> > >
> > > To accommodate for the holiday season, this adoption poll will end
> >
;
>>
>> ___
>> Pce mailing list
>> Pce@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>>
> ___
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
&
w confusion, risk
> destabilising the network? Should it use a different code point to be
> distinguishable?
>
> Gyan> Completely agree. I agree negative impact if any exist. See my
> comments above. As BGP has the ability to compartmentalize SAFI,
> codepoints and par
s to meet almost any design objective.
Comments welcome.
Kind Regards
Gyan
On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 3:26 PM Gyan Mishra wrote:
>
> Dear TEAS, PCE, IDR, LSR, BESS, BIER Spring Working Groups,
>
> I have noticed that after reviewing many drafts across many WGs it seems
> in the indu
ht I would bring
up to the WG as an important discussion point.
Lots of food for thought. Welcome all comments as well as concerns related
to this topic.
Kind Regards,
<http://www.verizon.com/>
*Gyan Mishra*
*Network Solutions A**rchitect *
*M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver S
terest/participation level in our standards process.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > o Please review ideas from your peers, these are community outputs
>
> > > > of the
>
> > > working group as a whole.
>
> > > >
>
> > >
&
Support publication.
Gyan
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 1:38 PM Z.H Liu wrote:
> support as contributor.
> thanks
>
> Vic(Zhiheng) Liu
>
> Daniele Ceccarelli
> 于2019年12月16日周一 下午10:33写道：
>
>> Support as well, I believe the draft is now ready for publication.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Daniele (co-author)
>
64 matches
Mail list logo
