Hi,
Dorian asked a question about how much benefit do we get from
draft-avantika-pce-multi-src-dest.
I am CCing WG as well (hope that's okay!).
Considering an example of path request where 4 requests need to be encoded
(from 2 sources to 2 destinations with the exact same constraints).
This figure illustrates the existing mechanism of carrying multiple requests in
single PCReq message (as per RFC 5440):
+--------------+ +--------------+ +--------------+ +--------------+
|RP | |RP | |RP | |RP |
+-------+ |END-POINTS(8) | |END-POINTS | |END-POINTS | |END-POINTS |
|COMMON |+|BANDWIDTH |+|BANDWIDTH |+|BANDWIDTH |+|BANDWIDTH
|=148 Bytes
|HEADER | |METRIC | |METRIC | |METRIC | |METRIC |
+-------+ |METRIC | |METRIC | |METRIC | |METRIC |
+--------------+ +--------------+ +--------------+ +--------------+
4 Bytes 36 Bytes 36 Bytes 36 Bytes 36 Bytes
Combining multiple requests into a single request by using MP2MP END-POINTS
object:
+--------------+
|RP |
+-------+ |END-POINTS(20)|
|COMMON |+|BANDWIDTH | = 54 Bytes
|HEADER | |METRIC |
+-------+ |METRIC |
+--------------+
4 Bytes 48 Bytes
There is message size reduction of 64% in this illustration.
Thus we feel that this simple extension to PCEP END-POINTS object can be
useful.
Regards,
Udaya
---------
From: Dorian Davis [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 11 February 2014 13:47
To: [email protected]
Subject: Regd draft-avantika-pce-multi-src-dest
Hi Authors,
I read your document but I wonder how much benefit are you getting from this?
D
------------------
Dorian Davis
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
