Subject: [Pce] Few comments for draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-05

From: KONDREDDY VENUGOPAL REDDY <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 19:08:24 +0530

Hi,

Please find few comments for stateful PCE draft-05.

1.       In the current draft, we don't have mechanism to carry Primary's
PLSP-ID while delegating backup LSP. It would be required for a backup LSP
to know its primary LSP paths.

2.       There are chances where PcRpt/PcUpd message getting fragmented.
Suggest, we can extend the PCEP fragmentation mechanism described in RFC
6006 to PcRpt and PcUpdate messages as well. We can have  F bit in SRP
object or else in LSP object(mandatory object) so as to support PCEP
fragmentation.

3.       Suggest to extend PcReport to carry all the objects in
PcRequest(except RP) because,

a.       LSP object doesn't  have mechanism to specify LSP's endpoint.

b.      There may be a case where PCC wishes to specify IRO/XRO while
delegating LSP to a PCE.

Regards,

Venu