Hi, Zongpeng
I prefer the second method, because I think distributed is a
feature of ASA. So an ASA should synchronize the information it receives to
other ASAs. But I'm not sure that it is necessary for other ASAs need response
this synchronization message. Whether to send a flooding message is OK?
In my think, this draft pay attention to the negotiation
between SI to APE. And how to reservate resource hop-by-hop is not we discuss
in this draft.
Best Regards
Yujing Zhou
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: 2021年10月26日 23:31
To: zhouyujing (A) <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Anima] Discussion regarding
draft-dang-anima-network-service-auto-deployment
Hi, Yujing
Some personal understandings are listed here. If any misunderstandings,
please correct me. Thanks.
Just like the two mechanisms existed, we can use a hop-by-hop method or a
centralized method.
The first method looks like the RSVP-TE. The APE can send a "PATH" message
including the whole path. Whenever an intermediate node can not provide the
resource, the auto deployment is failed and some errors are reported.
The DPE needs to respond a "RESV" message.
The second method looks like the PCE-CC. The APE sends a request message to
each node on the path. Only if all the responses are ok, the auto deployment
succeeds.
Best Regards
Zongpeng Du
________________________________
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> &
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
From: zhouyujing (A)<mailto:[email protected]>
Date: 2021-10-21 14:31
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: [Anima] Discussion regarding
draft-dang-anima-network-service-auto-deployment
Hi,
Our discussion in the previous mailing list basically focused on the definition
of GRASP and we modified the objective based on the feedback. The related draft
is listed in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dang-anima-network-service-auto-deployment/
The draft want to build a general solution for resource-based network services
auto-deployment. So I think is a useful work for ANIMA. But in the draft, I'm
not sure some questions about process part and hope to get your help.
* If the SI accepting the negotiation, APE will receive this message. How can
APE tell other ASAs to remove the acceptable resource from there resource pool?
It is enough to re-use GRASP Flooding message.
* When the SI and APE is negotiating the resource, should APE need to tell
other ASAs reserve this resource? If two SIs request resources at the same
time, this may cause a conflict.
* Is it necessary to establish an auto-deployment mechanism to release or
increase resources when the SI change its need?
For the above question, I want to start a discussion to help the draft more
clarified about this part. So I specially write this email.
I hope to listen your opinions, and am looking forward to your reply.
Best wishes,
Yujing
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
