Hi Gyan,
> Gyan> Welcome. This seems like an application or controller based solution > that could be vendor specific and protocol independent or agnostic so then > why the need for standardization. This solution is 100% locally implemented, so there is no need for standardization. You’ll note that this is an informational draft. > I can see maybe if new protocol extensions were being created but if this > is a bandwidth management that an operator would purchase I don’t see a need > to standardize. As this draft is informational and not standards track is > the goal to socialize this subject to get community feedback on developing > this tool? Exactly. We look for community feedback and we also want to offer the concept to others. > Also does the TTE bandwidth management have to be done holistically across > all nodes or can the network graph be subdivided so not to impact the entire > network or exclude critical links, nodes or paths within the network. TTE can be applied on a per-link basis. > Gyan> I was just mentioning the differences between SR being stateless and > RSVP being stateful the design and deployment strategies are vastly different > and thus the use case for this TTE tool would vary dramatically as to how it > would be applicable. TTE is independent of the architecture used to compute the bypass paths. Tony
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
