Dimitri, Because for some important reservations, carrier want to reserve the specific path for many purposes such as better optimization, request length period, service guarantee, etc.
Why should PCE WG limits the scope between LSR-PCE/PCE-PCE elements? We are defining the architecture now. Adrian has mentioned that it is in PCE scope. Regards, Lucy -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 12:25 PM To: Lucy Yong Cc: 'Adrian Farrel'; 'Meral Shirazipour'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Pce] Comments about draft-ietf-pce-architecture-05 the question is why "time constraint" should be taken into account during path computation that would justify incorporation into the communication between LSR-PCE/PCE-PCE elements scheduling of LSPs - themselves - is outside the scope of the comm process between LSR-PCE/PCE-PCE elements, it is even outside the scope of the PCE (since not a resource manager of some sort) Lucy Yong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 24/05/2006 19:08 To: "'Adrian Farrel'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "'Meral Shirazipour'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Pce] Comments about draft-ietf-pce-architecture-05 All, Thank you for all the comments. PCE should support time-base reservation in the general and leave as an option for carrier to implement or not. If we exclude this functionality, it is hard to see the full automatic network because there are quite these kinds of service demands and carrier also encourages the pre-order so they can proactively engineer the network. I'll be glad to write an informational draft to explain the possible mechanism and protocols. Weather the function should be maintained in the same database or separated databases, it would be better to see after clarifying the functionality of each element first, and then decide the solution. The service reservation database mentioned here has a lot of information that PCE does not need and has no responsibility to maintain them. Maybe some cache mechanism could be used. Welcome anyone to provide the input on the informational draft. Best Regards, Lucy -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 11:11 AM To: Meral Shirazipour; Lucy Yong Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Pce] Comments about draft-ietf-pce-architecture-05 Begging your pardon, Meral, but I'm a bit confused. > I agree with what you say here. This is a fact to consider especially if > the > PCE architecture is to be adapted later on for inter-AS TE in the > 'Internet'. > What you say here is important if we consider the Internet peering models. The architecture is already intended to be "adapted" for that purpose. Have a quick read through the first few sections and you'll see ample discussion of inter-AS. Lucy's email seems to me to be about the time-based reservation of resources. This doesn't seem to me to be outside the scope of the current architecture, but one might want to write down how PCE is used for that purpose as an informational draft. Personally, I would find Lucy's suggestion of a distinct component and database that was consulted for each computation request a costly idea, and would prefer to see this type of function rolled into a single database. Adrian _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
