lucy -
take a look at
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-comm-protocol-gen-reqs-06.txt>
section 6.16,
if there is a need to consider - as you wrote - that "PCE should support
time-base reservation in the general
and leave as an option for carrier to implement or not." i would like to
hear from operators specific rationales
to incorporate as part of the communication protocol / PCE processing any
time constraint
now more fundamentally and as stated the role of the group is to define IP
communication protocols not network
architectures of some sort - reason for the suggestion made on section 5
adrian mentions what is that inter-AS PCE is in scope, he forgot probably
to mention to you that the primary
concerns of the work ongoing here is driven by four major concerns:
scalability, performance, robustness and
resiliency from this perspective any time constraint is going to seriously
impact all these base objectives
Lucy Yong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
24/05/2006 19:33
To: Dimitri PAPADIMITRIOU/BE/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: "'Adrian Farrel'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "'Meral
Shirazipour'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Pce] Comments about
draft-ietf-pce-architecture-05
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
