Hi Meral.
I believe the freshly posted minutes bring an answer to you question.
Beyond the generic scope in which this I-D was presented, I feel the
advantages and drawbacks of that proposal are off balance. On the one
hand, focusing on a single PCE solution removes a lot from the PCE
architecture (or requires heavy complementary mechanisms, i.e. yet
another strong shortcoming). On the other hand, it aims at "saving a few
crankbacks" (quoting Oscar) in the control plane, which is likely to end
up by saving a negligible time with respect to the data plane timescale,
especially for WDM where the label resource is scarcer (1st and longer
use case in the draft).
Finally, knowing that an implementation could make use of the proposed
idea based on a simple PCE policy, such an unbalanced protocol extension
seems more than questionable...
Regards,
Julien
Le 29/03/2012 19:55, Meral Shirazipour a écrit :
Hi JP,
I may have missed part of the discussion today after Oscar
presented. What was the next step for draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gonzalezdedios-pce-reservation-state-01 ?
Thanks,
Meral
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
