hi jean-louis
LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN wrote:
Hi Dimitri
Please see inline,
-----Message d'origine----- De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de dimitri
papadimitriou Envoyé : lundi 13 février 2006 17:11 À : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : [Pce] comments on
draft-ietf-pce-pcecp-interarea-reqs-00.txt
folks,
the document mentions
"A solution for computing inter-area TE-LSP path relies on a per
domain path computation ([PD-COMP]). It is based on loose hop
routing with an ERO expansion on each ABR. This can allow setting
up a constrained path, but faces two major limitations: -This does
not allow computing an optimal constrained path -This may lead to
several signalling crankback messages and hence delay the LSP
setup, and invoke routing activities. "
optimal computation does not imply resource reservation, hence a
PCE functionality does not prevent from crankback
Sure, but it drastically reduces crankback probability. Btw, the
above text never say that a PCE prevents from crankback...
just wanted to avoid confusion in one way or the other, i guess slight
rephrasing may help here
section 5 present two models, would it be possible to consider that
homogeneity is not necessarily verified, e.g. an area having a
single ABR does not a PCE to reach the local exit point
Could you clarify please?
the proposed models assume that there are always multiple exit points
per area (two) ... hence the question even if there is only ABR hence
not much to do in terms of selection the exit point, is the path comp.
sequence identical ?
section 7.13 should discuss scaling wrt to the TEDB wrt to single
PCE model it is stated that such consideration is beyond the scope
of the document i would more than certainly re-consider this since
this a necessary condition for supporting the "all area" PCE model
(is this not a single point of failure ? or are specifics in terms
of resilience outside the scope of this document)
Note that this draft discusses PCECP requirements and hence this
section is dedicated to PCECP scalability. This is why TEDB size is
out of the scope. By the way, please note that we are going to move
models description (section 5) to an applicability statement draft to
be posted soon.
does it mean you are going to discuss the scalability issues in the
latter document ?
thanks,
- dimitri.
Thanks
JL
thanks, - dimitri.
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list
[email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
.
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
