Re: Responses: AD-review comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-sdhsonet-control

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian at olddog.co.uk>]

Two pennies below.

> >> > 5. "Due to the increase in information transferred in the routing
> >> >     protocol, it may be useful to separate the relatively static
> >> >     parameters concerning a link from those that may be subject to
> >> >     frequent changes. The current GMPLS routing extensions [12],[13],
> >> >     [14] do not make such a separation, however."
> >> >
> >> >    it may be thus worth asking the question was the dissemination
> >> >    of these quasi-static "link capabilities" using the same rules
> >> >    as for any other TE LSA Type 1 sub-TLV the right approach ?
> >>
> >> From the carriers perspective, the up-to-date dissemination of all link
> >> properties is essential and desired. The use of a link-state routing
> >> protocol to distribute this information provides timely and efficient
> >> delivery.  Now, if we got to the point that bandwidth updates happened
> >> very frequently, it makes sense, from an efficiency point of view, to
> >> separate them out for update.  This situation is not yet seen in
> >> actual networks, however if GMPLS signaling is put into widespread use
> >> then the need could arise.
> 
> I have a feeling that if start peeling this onion (separation of more-static vs
> more-dynamic info distribution), we'll get into a rat-hole. It is clear that
> this direction hasn't been pursued. It is not clear if it will ever be.
> How do you guys feel about removing this statement?

Depending on what you mean by "very frequently" I don't see why:
- GMPLS-TE is different from MPLS-TE
- this isn't already an issue in TE networks
- it can't be handled (as it is today) by damping the information
  flood according to percentage change etc.

A