Subject: RE: [Pce] draft-ietf-pce-architecture-01

From: "Ash, Gerald R \(Jerry\), ALABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 04:53:20 -0500

Vivek,

> In case of "External PCE" model, should there be a provision 
> provided at the PCE to protect it against flood of path
> computation requests from a particular PCC (in case of
> malfunctioning).

See Section 6.1.8 of the PCE communication protocol (PCEP) generic
requirements
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-comm-protocol-gen-req
s-01.txt:

"  In some cases (e.g. after link failure), a large number of PCCs may
   simultaneously send requests to a PCE, leading to a potential
   saturation of the PCEs.  The PCEP or the transport protocol it uses
   MUST properly handle such overload situations without a significant
   decrease in performance, such as through throttling of such
requests."

Thanks,
Jerry

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 19:29:13 +0100

I think Vivek is raising a slightly different point. That is, allowing the
PCE to handle a PCC that is misbehaving. Presumably a naughty PCC could
ignore whatever throttling mechanisms are applied by the PCE.

As Jerry says, this is an issue for the PCE-PCC generic communication
requirements.

Thanks,
Adrian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS" <[email-masked]>
To: "Vivek Dubey-G20041" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 10:53 AM
Subject: RE: [Pce] draft-ietf-pce-architecture-01

Vivek,

Thanks,
Jerry