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

From: Vivek Dubey-G20041 <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 18:50:08 +0530

Jerry,
Thanks for the information.
Further "throttling of such requests" takes care of "saturation of PCE" in
terms of total path computation
requests. Malfunctioning of one/more PCC (resulting in overloading
condition) should not result in throttling
of requests from other PCCs (as PCE is a shared resource among multiple
PCCs).

Morever PCE should serve multiple PCCs according to some fairness policy
avoiding one PCC to congest PCE as a
resource.

Thanks
Vivek

-----Original Message-----
From: Ash, Gerald R \(Jerry\), ALABS [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 3:23 PM
To: Vivek Dubey-G20041; [email-masked]
Cc: Ash, Gerald R \(Jerry\), ALABS
Subject: RE: [Pce] draft-ietf-pce-architecture-01

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