| Hi, Dhruv:
OK, your explanations and supposed updates address my concerns.
Support its adoption. On Oct 10, 2024, at 19:41, Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com> wrote:
Hi Aijun,
Thanks for reading our draft and asking questions. 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
|
