Hi Jeff, I agree with some of the operational benefits listed for BGP, but I was wondering what is your thoughts w.r.t the convergence time for BGP-LS? Since its dependent on IGP-TE, wouldn't it suffer from the same convergence delay?
Dhruv On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Jeff Tantsura <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > While i find BGP-LS much more suitable for the distribution of TE data due to: > -BGP is well understood (operations/ troubleshooting, etc); sync, HA issues > had be solved > -Policies framework is comprehensive > -BGP infra in most cases is already in place > -RR construct provides hierarchy > -many more to mention > > For the cases where BGP is not wanted (perceived as too complex/ doesn't > support data types needed)/ PCE infra has been deployed and practices well > understood it would make sense to use it. > > >From use cases prospective i think it only addresses (i), the rest could be > >addressed similarly well by BGP, optical extensions are to come. > > Regards, > Jeff > >> On Jul 2, 2014, at 2:51 PM, "Leeyoung" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> We have just published a new PCE draft concerning alternative ways of >> transporting TE data that may not depend on IGP-TE or BGP-LS. >> >> The motivation for this work is a timely update of TE data directly from >> nodes to PCE(s) to support scenarios like: >> >> (i) networks that do not support IGP-TE or BGP-LS but want to implement PCE. >> (ii) applications that require accurate and timely TE data that current >> convergence time associated with flooding is not justified. >> (iii) reduction of node OH processing of flooding mechanisms (esp. optical >> transport networks where there are large amounts of traffic data and >> constraints due to OTN/WSON/Flexi-grid, etc. Note that also BGP-LS is not >> supported in optical transport networks today) >> >> Your comment will always be appreciated. >> >> Thanks, >> Young (on behalf of other co-authors) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 4:32 PM >> To: Greg Bernstein; Dhruv Dhody; Greg Bernstein; Zhenghaomian; Dhruv Dhody; >> Leeyoung; Leeyoung; Zhenghaomian >> Subject: New Version Notification for >> draft-lee-pce-transporting-te-data-00.txt >> >> >> A new version of I-D, draft-lee-pce-transporting-te-data-00.txt >> has been successfully submitted by Young Lee and posted to the IETF >> repository. >> >> Name: draft-lee-pce-transporting-te-data >> Revision: 00 >> Title: PCEP Extensions in Support of Transporting Traffic Engineering >> Data >> Document date: 2014-07-02 >> Group: Individual Submission >> Pages: 20 >> URL: >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lee-pce-transporting-te-data-00.txt >> Status: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lee-pce-transporting-te-data/ >> Htmlized: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-pce-transporting-te-data-00 >> >> >> Abstract: >> In order to compute and provide optimal paths, Path Computation >> Elements (PCEs) require an accurate and timely Traffic Engineering >> Database (TED). Traditionally this TED has been obtained from a link >> state routing protocol supporting traffic engineering extensions. >> This document discusses possible alternatives to TED creation. This >> document gives architectural alternatives for these enhancements and >> their potential impacts on network nodes, routing protocols, and >> PCE. >> >> >> >> >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission >> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. >> >> The IETF Secretariat >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pce mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
