Support.
This paper is just at the right time. More and more applications will depend on
it in the future.
Regards,
PSF
//[Pce] Adoption of draft-xiong-pce-lsp-flag-03
//Dhruv Dhody Mon, 01 February 2021 17:48 UTCShow header
//Hi WG,
//This email begins the WG adoption poll
Hi WG,
I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclosed in
accordance with IETF rules.
Regards,
PSF
-- 原始邮件 --
发件人：HariharanAnanthakrishnan;
收件人：ssi...@cisco.com; 彭少富10053815;
ato...@cisco.com; msiva...@gmail.com;
pengshup...@huawei.
Hi Chairs, WG,
Support as a co-author.
After enabling flexible algorithm in IGP domain, the SID stack depth can be
significantly reduced, which makes SR-TE path across multiple domains benefit
by including algorithm related SIDs, with shorter SID list and higher packet
encapsulation efficiency
Hi,
I am aware of the IPR applicable to this draft, and it has already been
disclosed to the IETF.
Regards,
PSF
Original
From: HariharanAnanthakrishnan
To: 彭少富10053815;bala...@juniper.net ;vbee...@juniper.net
;Mike Koldychev (mkoldych)
;熊泉00091065;gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com
Support as a co-author, color is a useful term for TE purpose during PCEP
signal, whether it is used in the traditional RSVP-TE tunnel or the current SR
policy.
Regards,
PSF
Original
From: DhruvDhody
To: pce@ietf.org ;
Cc: draft-rajagopalan-pce-pcep-co...@ietf.org
;
Date: 2022
Hi Samuel, WG,
I support the change, i.e., using constraints/metric-type from Flex-algo
definition for path computation.
Only based on that, PCE can have more possibility to get algo-SIDs for the
computed path, compared to the traditional constraints (such as that contained
in LSPA o
Hi Samuel, WG,
Thanks for the effort work to get the consensus about path computation
according to the content of FAD.
An explicit flag based on the existing SID-algo constraint for the purpose of
behavior b, seems good to me.
Regards,
PSF
Original
From: SamuelSi
Hi Marcel,
May it be a local policy of PCE ?
For a given that belongs to the same domain, it may be
the default policy for PCE to calculate a candidate path intra domain.
Otherwise, it may bring unnecessary complexity. For example, for a real
inter-domain
path requirement of tha
Hi WG,
I support the adoption of this document as a co-author. The mechanism is
concise but useful to meet practical requirements of segment routing with ECMP,
especially used in the case of inter-domain SR policy.
Regards,
PSF
Original
From: DhruvDhody
To: pce@ietf.org ;
Cc: pce-chairs
Hi Andrew, WG,
I am aware of the IPR applicable to this draft, and it has already been
disclosed to the IETF.
Regards,
PSF
Original
From: AndrewStone(Nokia)
To: pce@ietf.org
;熊泉00091065;彭少富10053815;qinfeng...@chinamobile.com
;zhaojunf...@caict.ac.cn
;pce-chairs ;
Date: 2024年01月27日 06:
Hi Chairs, WG,
I have read this document and find it is useful and support its forwarding.
Please see some comments as below:
[1]
In section 3.1. STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV, it said that
"When the PCEP session is established, a PCC sends an Open message with an OPEN
object that contains the S
Hi Cheng,
Thanks for your response.
For the objects of intended-attribute-list and actual-attribute-list, I didn't
treat them as mandatory ones. But just think that the document should also give
some guidance text on those non mandatory objects. However, I don't insist on
this point. Perhaps w
Hi,
I am aware of the IPR applicable to this draft, and it has already been
disclosed to the IETF.
Regards,
PSF
Original
From: AndrewStone(Nokia)
To: bala...@juniper.net ;vbee...@juniper.net
;彭少富10053815;mkold...@proton.me
;gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com
;pce@ietf.org ;pce-cha...@ietf.org
;
Hi Chairs, WG,
I have read this document and find it is useful and support its forwarding.
Please see some unblocking comments as below:
[1]
Stateful PCE defines more processing than stateless PCE, it is necessary to
check whether these processes need to consider Vendor Information.
For example
support
Thanks
Deccan
发件人: Jonathan Hardwick
[mailto:Jonathan.Hardwick=40metaswitch@dmarc.ietf.org]
发送时间: 2018年6月4日 18:11
收件人: pce@ietf.org; draft-wang-pce-pcep-extension-native...@ietf.org
抄送: pce-cha...@ietf.org
主题: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-wang-pce-pcep-
Hi Dhruv,
I am not aware of any IPR applicable to this draft that should be disclosed in
accordance with IETF IPR rules.
Regards,
PSF
Original
From: DhruvDhody
To: Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) ;Pengshuping
(Peng Shuping) ;彭少富10053815;ato...@cisco.com
;Samuel Sidor (ssidor) ;
Cc: pce@
Hi Chairs, WG,
I support WGLC of this draft as a co-author.
I have read the latest version and think it is ready for publication.
Regards,
PSF
Original
From: DhruvDhody
To: pce@ietf.org ;
Cc: pce-chairs ;draft-ietf-pce-sid-a...@ietf.org
;
Date: 2024年12月06日 03:03
Subject: WGLC for draft-iet
17 matches
Mail list logo
