----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 4:26
AM
Subject: Comments on
"draft-li-ccamp-wson-igp-eval-01.txt"
Hi Adrian and Dan,
I have the following comments on this draft. I
was wondering what were the objectives for the IGP evaluation. IMHO the
evaluation from WSON perspective should address the following:
1. IGP usage in the context of traditional
distributed solutions for WSON
[Dan] With the situation that TE
information is already be carried by IGP, it's nature to think that the
wavelength information can also be carried by IGP. I am not saying it should
be, but it's worth to look at.
[Bardalai, Snigdho] Do you see
any particular issues with using the IGP for this purpose
?
2. IGP usage in the
context of PCE solutions for WSON
[Dan] It's a potential
way for PCE to get the wavelength information.
[Bardalai, Snigdho] Since
the PCE is the location where path-computation takes place is it possible to
limit LSA advertisements from PCC to PCE neighbors, instead of to every PCC
neighbor?
3. Flooding and
refresh of static and dynamic link state updates
[Dan] Try to figure out the impact to
the performance of IGP.
[Bardalai, Snigdho] Is it possible to limit refreshing of
static LSA? Ex. using the OSPF "do not age"
concept?
4. Data base sync-up during node restarts
[Dan] Yes, this should be
considered. Especially the very large amount of
data will be sent to the restarting node. We may consider the point to point
data exchange instead of flooding the LSA updates. Or slice the big data
packet into small pieces.
[Bardalai, Snigdho] This is little tricky, I would be
interested to see if there is a clean
solution.
Could you please let me know if the above is
within the current scope? I believe that these are important.
Thanks,
Snigdho