I agree. Also here are some advantages of PCEP:
- draft-vasseur-pce-pcep-02.txt meets the PCE requirements as stated in
draft-ietf-pce-comm-protocol-gen- reqs-02.txt
- It is a lightweight protocol with a simple and clean state machine.
- Looks that it is easily extensible for new future requirements (by adding new
messages or objects).
- It has small number of messages and objects.
- Could reuse the mechanisms which have been already defined and deployed in
other protocols.
- Reuses of TCP for reliable messaging, flow control, security, etc.
- Supports solicited and unsolicited communication messages.
Cheers,
Anca
Zafar Ali (zali) wrote:
Hi,
I agree w/ the comments made by Dean. It is also important to realize
that the PCE communication protocol is a control plane protocol, not a
management plane protocol: hence it is of the utmost importance to
minimize communication overhead (see Dean's comment on communication
overhead).
Thanks
Regards... Zafar
To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian at olddog.co.uk>, <pce at ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [Pce] Choosing the PCE protocol
From: "Dean Cheng \(dcheng\)" <dcheng at cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 15:30:13 -0700
Cc:
List-archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/pce>
List-help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List-id: Path Computation Element <pce.lists.ietf.org>
List-post: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>,
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
List-unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>,
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: pce-bounces at lists.ietf.org
Thread-index: AcXFDbZz2JEoluA8QS2YadSDtllKogDWGX5Q
Thread-topic: [Pce] Choosing the PCE protocol
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
Hi,
I don't think HTTP is a good candidate for the PCE application
and here are some weakness one could think of, if it used for
PCE application:
1) The HTTP is specifically designed for communications between
web server and its client, or applications in that nature.
Although it is possible to add extensions to support PCE
application, it would require a considerable amount of work.
That is not worth of the effort given the much smaller and
narrower application scope of PCE.
2) The payload of HTTP messages (both request and response)
is in form of byte stream, which is unstructured comparing
to the PCEP proposal, where the content is structured with
objects.
For the PCE application, the object based format is more
efficient in terms of processing.
3) The HTTP does not have unsolicited messages such as Notification
message and Error message that are defined by PCEP.
4) PCE architecture allows a PCE functions as a server but also as
a client communicating with another PCE server. In both cases,
the same protocol is used. PCEP supports this scenario. There
requires some work to make HTTP behavior as such.
Dean
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
