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.
JLLR: You raised a good
point.
First of all note that this
point is not a protocol requirement, this is a local implementation issue,
and the jittering was just given as an example...
The PCC could apply
different jitter to low priority and high priority requests, and could
send
high priority request
before low priority one, this is a local PCC decision.
Also the request
prioritization function could be used so that the PCE serves high priority
requests first. The way a PCE is going to handle request prioritites is also
a local implementation issue.
Maybe we should remove this
sentence to avoid any confusion.
By the way note that this
section is generic and has just been moved to the generic requirement
draft.
So we will have to clarify
in the generic draft.
[ZRH] I
agree.
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.
[JLLR] A LSR may be a
PCC for some LSPs and a PCE for other
LSPs.
Anyway a LSR that runs ISIS or
OSPF for IP routing has to maintain a LSDB. I agree removing
TE info would save some memory and CPU but the gain sounds
quite low compared to the impact: For any computation, even a simple
intra-area CSPF, you would have to ask a PCE, and this
may lead to a high PCE stress. You would have a small CPU gain on
LSRs at a cost of a huge CPU consumption on PCEs...
[ZRH]yes, your
expanation is great, I think you are right.
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?
[JLLR] Yes, and this is a procedure local to
the PCC, that does not imply specific
PCECP procedure.
[ZRH] I noticed that in the draft
draft-ietf-pce-architecture-03, there are already restriction for a PCC to sent
multiple
requests
for a LSP. So I would likt to ask if
the restriction can be remove before we reach a agreement
on this point?
Thanks for these valuable
comments
Regards,
JL
Regards,
Zhang
