Re: [Pce] New version of the stateful pce applicability draft - draft-zhang-pce-stateful-pce-app-04

Hi Ina & Authors,
Now that we have new WG charter, I think it is a good time to clarify
applicability of PCE-Stateful.

Following are some of my observations that can be considered in your next
revisions of draft:

1. We need to scope the PCE-Stateful applicability, i.e., clarify
explicitly where vanilla PCE can be sufficient or PCE-Stateful could be an
overkill.
    - Similarly, it would be nice to describe deployments of Passive
Stateful PCE and  with Active Stateful PCE separately

I think draft describes goodness of Stateful well, however, it should
provide guidelines for choosing right set of PCE-stateful features.

Few basic applications (I am not sure this draft covers them explicitly)
from PCC Scale point of view:

2. I think draft should describe on performance w/ PCE-Stateful
    i.e., How PCE Stateful helps in dynamic changes compared to NMS based.

3. One obvious applicability of Active PCE-Stateful would be : config
scaling. Operators do not have to maintain tons of LSP configuration on the
box.

4. LSP monitoring is less expensive with PCE Stateful, as PCE is expected
to maintain complete state.
This reduces burden on routers.

Thanks,
Ravi

http://www.google.com/profiles/pratiravi

On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:

> Ina, WG,****
>
> ** **
>
> Pleased to see people thinking about applicability and use cases. IMHO,
> not enough attention is paid to why we are doing things and how they will
> be used. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks for the work, and hope people will review it (especially service
> providers!)****
>
> ** **
>
> Adrian****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Ina
> Minei
> *Sent:* 26 May 2013 22:52
> *To:* pce@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [Pce] New version of the stateful pce applicability draft -
> draft-zhang-pce-stateful-pce-app-04****
>
> ** **
>
> A new version of the stateful pce applicability draft was posted
> yesterday. ****
>
>  ****
>
> In the interest of making progress on this document, the authors would
> like to solicit review, comments and discussion from the working group,
> before the next IETF meeting. ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> URL:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-zhang-pce-stateful-pce-app-04.txt
> ****
>
> Status:
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhang-pce-stateful-pce-app****
>
> Htmlized:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-pce-stateful-pce-app-04****
>
> Diff:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-zhang-pce-stateful-pce-app-04****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> Ina and Xian on behalf of all the authors****
>
>  ****
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
>