Skip to main content

Extensions to the Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths
RFC 6006

Yes

(Adrian Farrel)

No Objection

Lars Eggert
(David Harrington)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Tim Polk)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 11 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert No Objection

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2010-04-22)
> 4.6. Impact on Network Operation

>   It is expected that use of PCEP extensions specified in this document
>   does not have significant impact on network operations.

While the addition of PCEP-P2MP extensions may have minimal impact on the level of traffic and operations, the applications that are enabled by activating these extensions may result in increased traffic and operational complexity.

(David Harrington; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2010-06-04)

                            

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection

No Objection (2010-04-22)
I support Tim's DISCUSS position too.

Some new comments based on Russ Mundy's SECDIR review:

1) RFC4875 Security Considerations requires that the ingress LSR of a
   P2MP TE LSP the leaves for the P2MP LSP for use in multi-vendor
   deployments.  Although it's not clear that this document needs to
   provide this requirement, I wanted to flag the requirement in case
   that it had been overlooked.

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2010-04-20)
The following text
====

Four values are possible for the leaf type field:

   1.  New leaves to add;
   2.  Old leaves to remove;
   3.  Old leaves whose path can be modified/reoptimized;
   4.  Old leaves whose path must be left unchanged.

====

Is almost identical to the text two lines above, and the list entry numbers are I think the values, but this is not a clear way to show it.

If the authors think there will ever be more than 4 operations, they should consider using a registry.

(Tim Polk; former steering group member) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()