El 27/02/2014 3:43, Dhruv Dhody escribió:
> What is not available today is to send the LSP object in the PCReq,
Ina since you bring this up, IMO LSP object in PCReq for passive
stateful PCE can be useful in case of re-optimization, exclusion etc.
Some extensions to PCEP are needed to do that, but the first step
would be to identify an LSP in PCReq message.
Dhruv, Ina, all
TL&DR +1. Just fwiw, in one of our use cases, a "front-end" stateful PCE
may delegate a complex (e.g. optical)
computation/re-optimization/defragmentation to a "back-end" PCE, and
both the TED and LSPDB are shared between the pool of PCEs. In previous
versions of the draft, we used the LSP object that was included within a
PCEP request. There was the issue about the plspid, our approach was
based on using a dummy plspid and refer to the LSP entry in the database
by its symbolic name (primary key).
In short, we did find it useful to be able to "refer" to an LSP within
the db when requesting computations between collaborating PCEs. Indeed,
much like Dhruv's, for this specific use case, the backend is stateful
but passive. The alternative is to provide the RRO, but the db contains
other relevant information that cannot be conveyed in a "rfc5440"
re-optimization
Thanks
Ramon
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
