Your question seems to assume that the two head ends ignore the changes
in the state of the network once they have made their decisions. That
isn't the way it works. They continue to observe and react to the state.
Yours,
Joel
On 9/21/2026 9:49 PM, Aijun Wang wrote:
Hi, Tony:
Let me state the logic more clear:
1)One headend(headend A) use the “most-fill” strategy to move the
traffic out of a set of links, let’s call it “Set A”
2)Another headend(headend B) use also its “most-fill” strategy to move
the traffic out of a set of links, let’s call it “Set B”.
3)According to the previous discussions, we can know there is no
theoretical guardedness that can assure the “Set A” is equal to “Set
B” , Right?
If luckily, “Set A” is equal “Set B”, the set of these links are idle
now, how can you assure there will be no other headend(headend C) will
allocate its LSP on such sets of the links later?
If you can’t assure, when will the nodes that connects these idle
links power off the these links then?
If you can’t power off the links, even they are idle for a long time,
where is the cost saved? Where is the benefits of applying the
distributed power-save TE?
Best Regards
Aijun Wang
China Telecom
*From:*[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf
Of *Tony Li
*Sent:* Monday, September 21, 2026 2:13 PM
*To:* Aijun Wang <[email protected]>
*Cc:* Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[email protected]>; Vishnu Pavan Beeram
<[email protected]>; Adrian Farrel <[email protected]>;
Barth, Colby <[email protected]>; Robert Raszuk
<[email protected]>; John Drake <[email protected]>;
John Drake <[email protected]>; WG TEAS <[email protected]>; lsr
<[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [Lsr] [Teas] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [Green]
【Distributed Power-aware TE is Impossilbe】RE: RV: Call for adoption:
draft-many-teas-power-steering-01 (Ends 2026-09-10)
Hi Aijun,
Let’s give you one another example that demonstrates
that_bandwidth management_is different from the_power-aware TE_:
Power-aware TE is part of bandwidth management. It is an optional
portion used to also save power under low bandwidth utilization.
Image the hotel booking scenario, if you book one room(similar
with bandwidth usage is full), no other guest will book again.
But if the room isn’t reserved (no traffic via it), the manager
will not take the room out of their website.------Because he can’t
assure there will be no other guest to book this vacant room in
future.
I’m sorry, I can’t parse this.
Back to our scenario, if fortunately, the traffic on some links
are cleared, the nodes connecting these links shouldn’t still make
these idle links sleep, because these nodes don’t know the LSP
requirements from other headend.
If a link is idle, then there are no LSPs assigned to that link. By
definition, for the link to be idle all LSPs must be assigned to other
acceptable paths.
If the headend doesn’t know when to sleep the idle links, how to
save costs (“millions of dollar?”)?
The headend is not responsible for sleeping idle links. It is only
responsible for placing LSPs on other links. The nodes that are the
link endpoints are responsible for putting the link to sleep.
And, we should be aware, as the operator, to keep the service
uninterrupted is the first aim.
That is very much the primary goal.
Tony
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
