Hi,
Comments inline. I didn't see any responses to my first few comments, so
presumably you agreed with them?
John
On Monday, September 21, 2026 at 08:32:13 AM PDT, Tony Li <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi John,
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.
> Since traffic patterns vary on a reasonably fixed schedule, why is the above
>behavior, even if it works (which is only guaranteed by emphatic >
>assertion), particularly useful?
Because traffic patterns are not absolute. They are a prediction, but Murphy
never cooperates and things sometimes vary from the expected prediction.
Periodic optimization allows us to deal with reality.
>> A couple of points:> > 1) Service Providers always allow for this when
>>they provision OR re-provision their networks, so I don't understand your
>>point>> 2) The re-optimization to which you refer would occur would be
>>performed regardless of the network topology>> 3) As has already been
>>established, ' optimization' when used in the context of any distributed
>>solution is a stretch. The technical term is> "re-run the experiment
>>and hope for a better result" where 'better' is ill-defined>
> There are defined mechanisms for steering traffic away from links that are
>to be taken out of service. Viz, RFC 8379 for non-TE traffic in OSPF>
>networks (and presumably its IS-IS equivalent), and RFC 5817 for TE traffic.
>The problem with the current proposal is that there is no way to use > these
>mechanisms to allow a service provider to dynamically alter the topology of
>its network in response to changes in traffic patterns.
These mechanisms are not precluded. As we’ve stated, there are
well-established techniques for redirecting the dark traffic.The comparable
technique for IS-IS is to simply max-metric the link, which is in fact what we
are doing.
>> JD: There are a lot of claims about what the current solution is or is not
>>doing but I personally find these claims to be a moving target and have yet >
>> to see them enumerated anywhere>> This includes the basics such as whether
>>non-TE traffic is supported > > I guess I'm old fashioned but I would
>>prefer a Theory of Operations which explains how the current proposal is
>>supposed to work, rather than trying > to infer this from a couple of puzzle
>>pieces. Particularly since absent a Theory of Operations it is difficult to
>>decide whether these couple of puzzle > pieces are needed or even correct>
Regards,Tony
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
