Hi Adrian, Sorry for the HTML, but I am hoping this thread can be closed soon...
Look in line for [DD]. From: Pce [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: 17 March 2014 03:28 To: 'Dhruv Dhody' Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-questions-02.txt Hi again, Here is the second missed email. Thoughts in line. Cheers, Adrian From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody Sent: 06 February 2014 12:22 To: Farrel Adrian Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-questions-02.txt Hi Adrian, There are a few comments that i made during the WG adoption call. [http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pce/current/msg03168.html]. Most of them have been handled in -01 version. I have listed some that i would like your opinion on. * Sec 3. How Is Topology Information Gathered? Another issue faced when using IGP to fed TED is the area-scope issue. Since IGP-TE flooding scope is per area, an multi-area or AS-scope PCE must have an IGP peer for all the areas. I'm pretty sure I disagree or agree. You are saying that a PCE that has multi-domain visibility must be able to build its TED from multiple sources (i.e. from each domain). Isn't this obvious? But I am adding a simple note at the end of Section 3 to cover this case. [DD] I am happy with the note! Also I think we can augment this section to include 'How PCE learn about Boundary Nodes?'. Hmmmm. And sigh :-) How does a non-PCE system learn about boundary nodes? It's in the IGP and the EGP. [DD] Sorry for being a pain, but I can live with you not including this. * Sec 5. How Do I Select Between PCEs? Along with capability, you can also mention the PCE's preference for each computation scope as carried in the PATH-SCOPE subtlv. You are going to have to remind me, I'm afraid. Where is the PATH-SCOPE subtlv defined? I suppose I was considering that a PCC is only going to choose a PCE in its own domain, but I can add a note. [DD] Its in RFC5088, 5089, the idea being PCC should select the PCE in its own domain which matches with the path computation scope (inter-area, inter-AS, inter-layer) along with the capability. OLD: When more then one PCE is discovered or configured, a PCC will need to select which PCE to use. It may make this decision on any arbitrary algorithm (for example, first-listed, or round-robin), but it may also be the case that different PCEs have different capabilities, in which case the PCC will want to select the PCE most likely to be able to satisfy any one request. The first requirement, of course, is that the PCE can compute paths for the relevant domain. NEW: When more than one PCE is discovered or configured, a PCC will need to select which PCE to use. It may make this decision on any arbitrary algorithm (for example, first-listed, or round-robin), but it may also be the case that different PCEs have different capabilities and path computation scope, in which case the PCC will want to select the PCE most likely to be able to satisfy any one request. The first requirement, of course, is that the PCE can compute paths for the relevant domain. (snip) * Sec 20. Comparison of Stateless and Stateful PCE Can you have a re look at this wrt draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-00 is now a WG draft. Mutter! Which document is right? What specific issue are you raising? [DD] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-questions-03#section-20 says | Stateless | Stateful | ------------------------+-----------+-----------+ Passive | 1 | 2 | Active delegated LSPs | 3 | 4 | Active suggest new LSPs | 5 | 6 | Active instantiate LSPs | 7 | 7 | 7. These modes are out of scope for PCE as currently described. Where does draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp fits in, in my reading this was 7, and thus I suggested it should not be out of scope. If you agree, ignore below text... Otherwise we have some confusion over the terms... IMO 'Suggest new LSP' was same as PCE sends an update message triggering setup of a new LSP in MBB fashion. 'Instantiate LSP' was PCE send an LSP initiate message to instantiate an LSP. (7) Maybe you can clarify what is your understanding of these terms... Regards, Dhruv Thanks, Adrian (who hates html email, but can't be bothered to convert this one to plain text).
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
