Hi Aijun,
> Then, from the operator’s side, why will they deploy such non-deterministic > (network-wide polarization) solution in their network? It can save them millions of dollars. It should also be noted that basic distributed bandwidth-engineering is already non-deterministic: path selection is a function of previous path placements. Since bandwidth management is a vital benefit for operators, they are very happy to make use of it and have been doing so for 30 years. Perhaps the key insight here is that systems need not be deterministic to be useful. > And we should aware that “put the interface into sleep state” is more strict > requirement than the “bandwidth adjustment”: > You should make sure all the services from each headend are not passing the > sleeping links, and WILL NOT the passing the sleeping links, or else there > will be service disrupt during the sleeping procedures. Sorry, I cannot parse this. Again, we do not seek an absolute solution that forces all traffic away from power-save capable links unconditionally. That’s not the point. We seek to consolidate traffic within TE constraints, and then if components are vacated, place them in power-sleep. > Without coordination of the LSPs requirements on each headend, when will you > end the “network-wide polarization” process and begin the sleeping management > procedures, which is the integral part of the overall proposal, but the > authors avoid touching it? LSP optimization is an ongoing periodic process. It does not end. Sleep management is an ongoing periodic process. It does begin or end. Ron has already described sleep management. Regards, Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
