Hi Aijun,
Thanks for reading our draft and asking questions.
On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 12:41 PM Aijun Wang <wangai...@tsinghua.org.cn>
wrote:
> Hi, Authors:
>
> Just want to clarify some questions first:
> 1) As described in section 6(Backward Compatibility) of your draft, it
> seems that " send a PCEP message without AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES TLV
> first and then include the AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES TLV with the updated
> sub-TLV. " can achieve the same effect to remove the aimed sub-TLV? If so,
> what's advantage of this draft? If not, why?
>
>
Dhruv: PCEP message without the AUTO-BANDWIDTH-ATTRIBUTES TLV indicates
that the auto-bandwidth feature is disabled. Including it again with
updated sub-TLV signals that the feature is enabled with the new
parameters. While switching-it-off-and-switching-it-back-on may get it to
work, this is not the proper method for handling modifications to the
auto-bandwidth parameters. Moreover, it will also cause unnecessary path
computation churn at the PCE.
> 2) Is there any situation that needs to remove the sub-TLV with default
> value? If so, it seems current mechanism can't achieve such aim.
>
>
Dhruv: Yes but there is no such situation. The default values lead to the
same behavior as if the sub-TLV was removed.
> 3) From the table 1 of your draft, the default value of "
> Down-Adjustment-Threshold " is " Adjustment-Threshold ", but the default
> value of " Adjustment-Threshold " is "None". Then which category the "
> Down-Adjustment-Threshold " belongs to? Have default value or not?
>
>
Dhruv: You make a good point. We should add one more condition as -
* if an explicit default value is set for the sub-TLV:
- Restore to the explicit default values
* if default value is set to another sub-TLV value:
- Remove the associated attribute
* if there is no default value for the sub-TLV:
- Remove the associated attribute
Assume we have a case of (Sample-Interval = 1000), we use the special value
of all zeros, Sample-Interval = 0, this leads to first if condition i.e.
Sample-Interval = 300
Now let's assume we have a case of (Adjustment-Threshold = X,
Down-Adjustment-Threshold = Y).
To remove Down-Adjustment-Threshold, we use the special value of all zeros
- Down-Adjustment-Threshold = 0, this will lead to a second if
condition(Adjustment-Threshold = X).
Now assume we want to remove Adjustment-Threshold as well, we use the
special value of all zeros - Adjustment-Threshold = 0, this will lead to
the third if condition and Adjustment-Threshold is removed.
I can make this update and add an example in the appendix.
Thanks!
Dhruv
>
> Best Regards
>
> Aijun Wang
> China Telecom
>
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: forwardingalgori...@ietf.org [mailto:forwardingalgori...@ietf.org]
> 代表 julien.meu...@orange.com
> 发送时间: 2024年10月7日 23:05
> 收件人: pce@ietf.org
> 主题: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-peng-pce-stateful-pce-autobw-update
>
> Hi all,
>
> This is an adoption poll for draft-peng-pce-stateful-pce-autobw-update.
> Do you believe that this document [1] is a right foundation for a PCE WG
> item?
> Please use the PCE mailing list to express your support or the reasons why
> you may be opposed to its adoption.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Julien
>
> ---
> [1]
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-peng-pce-stateful-pce-autobw-update
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
>
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
