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)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Dhruv Dhody | ||
| Last updated | 2015-06-29 (Latest revision 2014-12-26) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
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
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)