Path Computation Element (PCE) Architecture and mailing list,

["Zafar Ali" <zali@cisco.com>]

Title: Message

Hi Adrian, Jerry, JP, et al,

 

Thanks for putting the PCE Architecture document (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ash-pce-architecture-00.txt), I found it very useful in scoping PCE WG and applicability of PCE in MPLS/ GMPLS TE networks. In the following I have a few questions/ comments about this ID.

 

I would also like to request about what would be a tentative agenda for PCE BOF Part II in DC? I think the discussion in SD went very well in favor of PCE WG, pending this architecture ID. What is the present plan of record?

 

- What did you meant by "the level of robustness of the path resources", in PCC-PCE communication? I am expecting that the client can also specify an exclude list, include list (this is in addition of SRLG to include/ exclude).  

 

- Can you please elaborate more on advantages of Stateful PCE and what are the pits fall of using Stateful PCE in a distributed PCE environment. You have information about Out-of-band TED synchronization but I am thinking there is some complexity involved in such mechanism and stateful PCE in a distributed PCE setup. More description on the applicability of Stateful PCE & Out-of-band TED synchronization would be useful to better scope core vs.. advanced features of PCE.

 

- When PCE is distributed, are there any considerations in path computation (minimum guidelines, like constraints based shortest path based on the specified optimization criteria, optimization criteria does not change for the same setup when multiple PCE are involved in path computation, etc.) to make Path Computations in a distributed PCE scheme, that you think we need to add to the text of this document.

 

- When a number of disjoint paths are required, we need a mechanism to specify if near disjoint Paths are acceptable (but this is need not to be in architecture doc).  

 

The rest of the document look very good to me.

 

Regards... Zafar