Stefano, > Hi Yakov, > > indeed. It's part of a problem statement that describes how > networks are deployed today and how these network may benefit > from a SR solution.
As I mentioned in my original e-mail, section 5.1.2.2.1 presents a comparison between an approach where traffic engineering is done by distributed CSPF and an approach where it is done by using centralized computation for dynamically setting/adjusting IGP metrics based on the traffic load and for computing paths for explicitly routed tunnels. Such comparison is outside the scope of the SPRING use case document, as dynamic IGP metric adjustment based on the traffic load, and the ability to reduce the number of explicitly routed tunnels are due to the centralized path computation, and are independent of SR. Yakov. > > > > So, to me, it looks the right place for this description to be. > > > s. > > > On Apr 2, 2014, at 7:46 PM, Yakov Rekhter wrote: > > Stefano, > > > > Section 5.1.2 contains plenty of material that is not use cases. > > > > E.g., section 5.1.2.1 describes capacity planning process, but > > not a particular use case. Such description is outside the scope > > of the use case document. > > > > E.g., section 5.1.2.2.1 goes into comparison between the scheme > > where traffic engineering is done by distributed CSPF and the scheme > > where it is done by using centralized computation for dynamically > > setting/adjusting IGP metrics based on the traffic load and for > > computing paths for explicitly routed tunnels. Such comparison is > > outside the scope of the use case document. > > > > Yakov. > > > > _______________________________________________ > spring mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring > > > _______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
