Hi Aijun, > Let me state the logic more clear: > > 1) One headend(headend A) use the “most-fill” strategy to move the traffic > out of a set of links, let’s call it “Set A” > 2) Another headend(headend B) use also its “most-fill” strategy to move > the traffic out of a set of links, let’s call it “Set B”. > 3) According to the previous discussions, we can know there is no > theoretical guardedness that can assure the “Set A” is equal to “Set B” , > Right?
Correct. Of course, given the theoretical foundation of your premise, the two paths might not be on the same continent, not share any links before or after optimization, and thus, could not intersect anyway. This seems like a really contrived example and wholly irrelevant to the case at hand. > If luckily, “Set A” is equal “Set B”, the set of these links are idle now, > how can you assure there will be no other headend(headend C) will allocate > its LSP on such sets of the links later? You cannot. Nor would you want to. Headend C would use the links if there is no better alternative, and thus there is not capacity in the network to shut down those links. > If you can’t assure, when will the nodes that connects these idle links power > off the these links then? When all of the traffic is off of the links. > If you can’t power off the links, even they are idle for a long time, where > is the cost saved? Where is the benefits of applying the distributed > power-save TE? Asked and answered. If the links are idle for a long time, then they would have been shut down. Tony
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
