Hi, Yes we need an applicability document. draft-zhang-pce-stateful-pce-app is addressing this, but there are some parts that could be improved:
Section 4.3 : This is a drawback of the stateful PCE, this could be stated as follows : A staful PCE requires an LSP-DB synchronization, which cause an addition delay or synchronization issues, thus impacting negatively the survivability of a PCE. . In my opinion a statfull PCE could mitigate that by acting as stateless until this synchronization has been done. Section 5: maybe describing some use case not solved by a stateful PCE would be useful, or which additional constraints this add For instance having an active stateful add another controller in the network, it may not always sit well with existing NMS or network architecture, yet they would benefit from the passive stateful. Section 5 : it would be usefull to indicate which scenario requires an active stateful, For instance section several use cases can be solved using both, an active stateful can fix the problem afterwards, a passive stateful could solve it beforehand (if the planned services are known), So cases (for instance 5.4.2 or 5.4.3) can be solved using passive stateful PCE only, which would not present the same implication for deployement. Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Cyril Margaria From: pce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ina Minei Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 6:17 PM To: JP Vasseur (jvasseur); Julien Meuric; pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Stateful PCE applicability Dear chairs and working group, In light of the recent working group re-charter which now includes stateful PCE, we wanted to hear the opinions of the group on 1. the need for an applicability document for stateful PCE and 2. whether draft-zhang-pce-stateful-pce-app satisfies this need, or any gaps it might have Thank you, Ina and Xian
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
