Cyril, Thank you for the very thoughtful comments. Please see inline ###.
Ina From: Margaria, Cyril (Coriant - DE/Munich) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 5:34 AM To: Ina Minei; JP Vasseur (jvasseur); Julien Meuric; [email protected] Subject: RE: Stateful PCE applicability Hi, Yes we need an applicability document. draft-zhang-pce-stateful-pce-app is addressing this, but there are some parts that could be improved: Section 4.3 : This is a drawback of the stateful PCE, this could be stated as follows : A staful PCE requires an LSP-DB synchronization, which cause an addition delay or synchronization issues, thus impacting negatively the survivability of a PCE. . In my opinion a statfull PCE could mitigate that by acting as stateless until this synchronization has been done. ### I agree we should discuss on potential drawbacks. As you have seen, there are various proposals (new drafts) submitted to alleviate this. Section 5: maybe describing some use case not solved by a stateful PCE would be useful, or which additional constraints this add ### Discussion on constraints added by a stateful pce deployment is probably something we should consider adding, but I wonder if this shouldn't fit better in section 4 (e.g. discussion on state sync) For instance having an active stateful add another controller in the network, it may not always sit well with existing NMS or network architecture, yet they would benefit from the passive stateful. ### Not sure what you mean, maybe you have specific text? Section 5 : it would be usefull to indicate which scenario requires an active stateful, For instance section several use cases can be solved using both, an active stateful can fix the problem afterwards, a passive stateful could solve it beforehand (if the planned services are known), So cases (for instance 5.4.2 or 5.4.3) can be solved using passive stateful PCE only, which would not present the same implication for deployement. ### The draft doesn't go in a lot of discussion on active and passive, this was not a goal. I can see the point you are making, will evaluate with the co-authors how to address the comment on sections 5.4.2 and 5.4.3 in the next version. Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards Cyril Margaria From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ina Minei Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 6:17 PM To: JP Vasseur (jvasseur); Julien Meuric; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [Pce] Stateful PCE applicability Dear chairs and working group, In light of the recent working group re-charter which now includes stateful PCE, we wanted to hear the opinions of the group on 1. the need for an applicability document for stateful PCE and 2. whether draft-zhang-pce-stateful-pce-app satisfies this need, or any gaps it might have Thank you, Ina and Xian
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
