Tony, Despite the advent of TE, it has not been involved in the provisioning of IP networks. What we are exploring is whether an IP forwarding application, either TE or non-TE, can affect the provisioned IP network over which it runs. You seem to assert that it can, by causing links to be de-activated. (I'm sure I'm incorrect, but I don't recall how the TE application can cause the re-actvation of links or how a non-TE application can cause either the de-activation or re-activation of links.) However, in the case of the de-activation of links, if operated in a distributed fashion, I don't think it has been shown, and again, I'm sure I'm incorrect, how it is possible to ensure that the correct links, from a global optimization perspective, are de-activated. And lest we forget, anything that we develop must be incrementally deployable. >From my perspective, I think a bottom-up approach based upon an approach that >is problematic at best, is the right strategy. and I think an integrated >top-down approach across multiple WGs is preferable. Thanks, John On Wednesday, September 2, 2026 at 08:17:46 AM PDT, Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote: Hi John,
Generally, a network is provisioned in a centralized fashion using the global [source, destination] traffic matrix and then applications, both TE and non-TE, make use of the resultant topology. For the last thirty years, that has been one alternative. Another alternative is to provision and orchestrate things in a distributed fashion. This has been the root of TE since RFC 5305. I know that you know this, so I can help but wonder what your real point is. Regards,Tony _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
