Hi, JP Sorry for seeing your reply so late. Thanks, see inline.
----- Original Message ----- From: JP Vasseur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, January 5, 2006 3:07 am Subject: Re: [Pce] Comment on draft-ietf-pce-pcecp-interarea-reqs-00.txt > Hi , > > On Dec 28, 2005, at 2:03 AM, Zhang Renhai wrote: > > > Hi, Jean-Louis > > > > I have some comment on the draft draft-ietf-pce-pcecp-interarea- > > > reqs-00.txt > > > > In section 7.11.1, In case of network failure, jittering will > be > > used to avoid > > simultaneous requests sent to one PCE. Could more consideration > be > > given here to > > the preemptment, becouse the jittering timeout is stochastic, > some > > lower request > > may be served before a higher request and the path may be > > calculated differently. > > which may increase the probability of a preemptment. > > > > The decision on the PCC request scheduling is out of the scope of > this ID. Note that the point that you mentioned also applies to > the > located-PCE case. I am not sure what scope this point belongs to. I just considered more about what has been mentioned in the draft. Is this consideration important anough to be added somewhere? > > > > > I have always been thinking a question: if a PCC will not > perform > > the CSPF > > computation, why does it still maintain the TEDB any longer? > which > > may consume > > a lot of memory and CPU of a LSR.This question dost not aid at > this > > draft. > > > > Because > (1) The PCE may decide to use a remote PCE for some LSPs and not > for > others (for instance, inter versus intra-domain) > (2) The PCE may decide to always use a PCE and fall back to local > path computation or loose hop routing under specific conditions Agree, I just want to be convinced if some routers acting as a pure PCC (no longer perform path computation)can save some CPU and memory so there could be a lower requirement on capability to these routers in PCE-based environment.Maybe this is a benefit to PCE Architecture. > > > In inter-area environment,sometimes, a PCC may wish to get as > many > > paths as possible, > > for all kinds of purpose,so could the PCC send the request to > more > > than one PCEs? > > > > Yes, although this would clearly be very sub-optimal .... I am not sure your point, could you please expand your explanation any more? In my opinion, a ABR acting as a PCE usually can not have a full AS-scope information of TED. so it may return a sub-optimal compuation result compared to some latent path which can be returned by other ABR linked to a different area. I know this can be solved by a ABR through sending the request to multiple ABR in a area, otherwise, how to solve this problem? Thanks, Zhang > > JP. > > > Regards, > > Zhang > > _______________________________________________ > > Pce mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > > _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
