Subject: Re: [Pce] Comment on draft-ietf-pce-pcecp-interarea-reqs-00.txt

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 14:07:05 -0500

Hi ,

On Dec 28, 2005, at 2:03 AM, Zhang Renhai wrote:

> Hi, Jean-Louis
>
>  I have some comment on the draft draft-ietf-pce-pcecp-interarea- 
> reqs-00.txt
>
>  In section 7.11.1, In case of network failure, jittering will be  
> used to avoid
> simultaneous requests sent to one PCE. Could more consideration be  
> given here to
> the preemptment, becouse the jittering timeout is stochastic, some  
> lower request
> may be served before a higher request and the path may be  
> calculated differently.
> which may increase the probability of a preemptment.
>

The decision on the PCC request scheduling is out of the scope of  
this ID. Note that the point that you mentioned also applies to the  
located-PCE case.

>
>  I have always been thinking a question: if a PCC will not perform  
> the CSPF
> computation, why does it still maintain the TEDB any longer? which  
> may consume
> a lot of memory and CPU of a LSR.This question dost not aid at this  
> draft.
>

Because
(1) The PCE may decide to use a remote PCE for some LSPs and not for  
others (for instance, inter versus intra-domain)
(2) The PCE may decide to always use a PCE and fall back to local  
path computation or loose hop routing under specific conditions

>  In inter-area environment,sometimes, a PCC may wish to get as many  
> paths as possible,
> for all kinds of purpose,so could the PCC send the request to more  
> than one PCEs?
>

Yes, although this would clearly be very sub-optimal ....

JP.

> Regards,
> Zhang
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce