Hi Xian, On Jul 31, 2013, at 23:14 , "Zhangxian (Xian)" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > Thank you for questions. > > I do not understand your statement "if the PCC state is so big that could > not be transferred in one shot (not necessarily one packet or one datagram). > " When we are talking here is to synchronize the LSP-DB, which consists of > LSPs of manageable message size. Actually, it is possible to combine multiple > LSP states together. > GM> In section 1.1 "Motivation" you provide some numbers. Could you estimate the the LSP-DB size & bandwidth available? Do you agree that optimisation suggested here has some costs? > Secondly, for what you mentioned "first request fails", what do you mean by > that? Since PCEP is based on TCP, so there should be mechanisms to support > reliable delivery (outside of PCEP). So, NO MATTER if it is full sync. or > partial sync., the DB will be incomplete anyway even if your assumption > holds. So it does not invalidate our proposal. GM> I guess I meant a state syncronization operation (or sequence ) as per section 5.4 "State Synchronisation" of the bible. In general operations may fails for different reasons ... anyway TCP should help you in avoiding further mechanism > > > As for the last comment, if you read (or may be interested to) the WG draft > carefully, the function you mentioned below as "A PCC SHOULD remember the > deleted LSP as well" is already supported there. So, I do not see how it is > an issue at all. GM> could you provide a pointer where is already supported? Cheers G > > Regards, > Xian > > ________________________________________ > 发件人: [email protected] [[email protected]] 代表 Giovanni Martinelli > (giomarti) [[email protected]] > 发送时间: 2013年8月1日 1:50 > 到: [email protected] > 主题: [Pce] comment on draft-zhx-pce-stateful-lsp-sync-00 > > Dear Authors, > > here an engineer (not necessarily a network engineer) comment. It comes to my > mind during today presentation so ... tossing to the list hope help > discussion. > > Looks to me you are adding an optimisation that actually may add more > problems than the one you are trying to solve. > > I first wonder if the PCC state is so big that could not be transferred in > one shot (not necessarily one packet or one datagram). In case first request > fails wound't be better just retry instead of adding the complexity of > incremental updates? > > Second, you have to pay the price of partially synchronised DB. What you can > do with a partial state? My first feeling you have to just consider your DB > as not synchronised. > > Third, You also imply there's more state to maintain at the PCC side as > well... e.g. "A PCC SHOULD remember the deleted LSP as well" . > > Cheers > G > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
