Informal Survey into Include Route Object (IRO) Implementations in Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP)
draft-dhody-pce-iro-survey-02

Document Type Expired Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2015-06-29 (latest revision 2014-12-26)
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
Expired & archived
pdf htmlized bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state Expired
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)

This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft can be found at
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-dhody-pce-iro-survey-02.txt

Abstract

During discussions of a document to provide a standard representation and encoding of Domain-Sequence within the Path Computation Element (PCE) communication Protocol (PCEP) for communications between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a PCE, or between two PCEs. It was determined that there was a need for clarification with respect to the ordered nature of the Include Route Object (IRO). Since there was a proposal to have a new IRO type with ordering, as well as handling of Loose bit (L-Bit), it felt necessary to conduct a survey of the existing and planned implementations. This document summarizes the survey questions and captures the results. Some conclusions are also presented. This survey was informal and conducted via email. Responses were collected and anonymized by the PCE working group chairs.

Authors

Dhruv Dhody (dhruv.ietf@gmail.com)

(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)