Subject: Re: [Pce] New Version of draft-zhao-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures

From: Quintin Zhao <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 17:53:04 -0500

Hi Julien,

In order to get a "good enough" result instead of getting an optimal result
in the dynamic scenario,
we have mentioned a possible procedure in the last paragraph of section 7.2
from the current version of the draft, 
where the transit PCEs should be configurable to control the number of paths
sent upstream. 

Then the challenge is to find the right number (or the "good enough" number)
of path sent upstream we can configure at the transit PCEs. 
It depends on a lot of factors, such as the network topology and the
definition of the "good enough". :-)  

Any suggestions regarding to procedures/heuristics that might help to get a
"good enough" number are welcome.

Thanks for your time!

Quintin

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 18:21:18 +0100
From: Julien Meuric <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Pce] New Version	of
	draft-zhao-pce-pcep-inter-domain-p2mp-procedures
To: [email-masked]
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed

Hi.

Chair hat off, so non-authoritative answer. :-)

I tend to agree that "good enough" is enough, especially with respect to 
an expensive optimality which might not be my fellow's optimality...

Thanks,

Julien

Le 16/02/2011 22:27, Daniel King a ?crit :
> Although you make an excellent point, is it necessary to have the 
> optimal core tree? We should defer to the operators to an 
> authoritative response. My personal opinion is that ?good enough? is 
> probably suitable.

------------------------------

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

End of Pce Digest, Vol 78, Issue 10
***********************************