Subject: RE: [Pce] Selecting a PCE Communication Protocol - Pulling thethreadstogether

From: "Darek Skalecki" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:19:27 -0400

Same reasons as most other people on this list, i.e. lightweight and
directly supports the requirements.
 
Darek

Darek Skalecki 
Optical Networks 
Nortel 
[email-masked] 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: October 21, 2005 1:02 PM
To: Skalecki, Darek [CAR:QT32:EXCH]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Pce] Selecting a PCE Communication Protocol - Pulling
thethreadstogether

hi darek - 

would it be possible to know what are the specific reasons (if any) that
led you to this selection ?

i think this may help debate during next meeting 

thanks,

- dimitri. 

"Darek Skalecki" <[email-masked]>
Sent by: [email-masked]
10/21/2005 09:43 AST

To: <[email-masked]>
cc: 
bcc: 
Subject: RE: [Pce] Selecting a PCE Communication Protocol - Pulling
thethreadstogether

Good day, 

Just thought I would throw in my 2c. All considered, for our GMPLS
solution we are also looking at PCEP, as opposed to the other
alternatives, as a PCE communication protocol. While on the subject, I
hope the authors of PCEP will consider computation of GMPLS paths, such
as light paths, in the near future. Further extensions will be required
for that purpose. For example, expressing bandwidth in bytes per second
will not suffice for light paths.

Thanks, 
Darek 

Darek Skalecki 
Optical Networks 
Nortel 
[email-masked] 

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce