inoue.ichiro@lab.ntt.co.jp | 1 Aug 11:18 2008
Picon

Re: Adoption of two new WG documents (P2MP requirement andapplicability)

Hi,

Both in favor.

Thanks.

Ichiro

> Dear WG,
> 
> There was a good consensus to adopt the two following documents as PCE WG
> documents during the meeting in Dublin. As usual, we would like to confirm
> on the list.
> 
> draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-app-02.txt
> draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-req-05.txt
> 
> Could you tell us if you are in favor (or not) of adopting these documents
> as PCE WG documents ?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> JP.
> 

Tomohiro Otani | 4 Aug 02:35 2008
Picon

Re: Adoption of two new WG documents (P2MP requirement and applicability)

Hi,

Yeah, Those are good.
I am fine with their being adopted as WG documents.

Regards,

Tomo

JP Vasseur さんは書きました:
> Dear WG,
>
> There was a good consensus to adopt the two following documents as PCE 
> WG documents during the meeting in Dublin. As usual, we would like to 
> confirm on the list.
>
> draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-app-02.txt
> draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-req-05.txt
>
> Could you tell us if you are in favor (or not) of adopting these 
> documents as PCE WG documents ?
>
> Thanks.
>
> JP.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce <at> ietf.org
(Continue reading)

Mach Chen | 4 Aug 13:57 2008

Re: Adoption of two new WG documents (P2MP requirement andapplicability)

In favor
 
Mach

From: JP Vasseur
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 10:50 PM
Subject: [Pce] Adoption of two new WG documents (P2MP requirement andapplicability)

Dear WG,

There was a good consensus to adopt the two following documents as PCE WG documents during the meeting in Dublin. As usual, we would like to confirm on the list.

draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-app-02.txt
draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-req-05.txt

Could you tell us if you are in favor (or not) of adopting these documents as PCE WG documents ?

Thanks.

JP.

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
<div>
<div>In favor</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Mach</div>
<div>
<div><br></div>
<div>
<div>From: <a title="jvasseur <at> cisco.com" href="mailto:jvasseur <at> cisco.com">JP Vasseur</a> </div>
<div>Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 10:50 PM</div>
<div>To: <a title="pce <at> ietf.org" href="mailto:pce <at> ietf.org">pce <at> ietf.org</a> </div>
<div>Subject: [Pce] Adoption of two new WG documents (P2MP requirement 
andapplicability)</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br></div>
<span>Dear WG,<br><br>There was a good consensus to adopt the 
two following documents as PCE WG documents during the meeting in Dublin. As 
usual, we would like to confirm on the list.<br><br></span><span>draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-app-02.txt<br>draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-req-05.txt<br><br>Could you tell us if you are in 
favor (or not) of adopting these documents as PCE WG documents 
?<br><br>Thanks.<br><br>JP.</span> 
<p>
</p>
<p></p>_______________________________________________<br>Pce mailing 
list<br>Pce <at> ietf.org<br>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce<br>
</div>
Meral Shirazipour | 5 Aug 01:24 2008
Picon
Picon

PCE computation time

Hi,
   Does anyone have actual values for the min/average/max PCE computation times
in a real network?
I remember that the issue was discussed for the monitoring draft.

Thanks,
Meral

Adrian Farrel | 5 Aug 15:55 2008
Picon

Re: PCE computation time

Now then, Meral,

I think computation times *might* be dependent on CPU power, loading, 
compiler efficiency, software implementation, algorithm choice, network 
complexity, etc.

Some observations suggest that computation for single LSPs with normal 
constraints can be achieved using CSPF and there are studies recording the 
number of logical steps needed to perform such a computation. In general, 
for this type of computation, we observe that a remote PCEP communication 
takes far more time than the computation. (Times may vary according to the 
pre-existence of the PCEP session.)

Other observations note that some computation problems are quite hard and 
need a few more cycles. In these cases, given the low power of CPUs on NEs, 
the communication time may be less significant.

Cheers,
Adrian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Meral Shirazipour" <meral.shirazipour <at> polymtl.ca>
To: <pce <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:24 AM
Subject: [Pce] PCE computation time

> Hi,
>   Does anyone have actual values for the min/average/max PCE computation 
> times
> in a real network?
> I remember that the issue was discussed for the monitoring draft.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Meral
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
> 

julien.meuric | 5 Aug 16:00 2008

Re: Adoption of two new WG documents (P2MP requirement andapplicability)

Hi.

I agree on adoption.

Julien

________________________________

From: pce-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of JP
Vasseur

Dear WG,

There was a good consensus to adopt the two following documents as PCE
WG documents during the meeting in Dublin. As usual, we would like to
confirm on the list.

draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-app-02.txt
draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-req-05.txt

Could you tell us if you are in favor (or not) of adopting these
documents as PCE WG documents ?

Thanks.

JP. 
Daniel King | 5 Aug 17:00 2008
Picon

Re: Adoption of two new WG documents (P2MP requirement and applicability)

Hello All,

 

I would support both these documents becoming WG docs.

 

Br, Dan

 

From: pce-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of JP Vasseur
Sent: 31 July 2008 15:51
To: pce <at> ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] Adoption of two new WG documents (P2MP requirement and applicability)

 

Dear WG,

There was a good consensus to adopt the two following documents as PCE WG documents during the meeting in Dublin. As usual, we would like to confirm on the list.

draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-app-02.txt
draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-req-05.txt

Could you tell us if you are in favor (or not) of adopting these documents as PCE WG documents ?

Thanks.

JP.

<div>

<div class="Section1">

<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Hello All,<p></p></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span><p>&nbsp;</p></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span>I would support both these documents becoming WG docs. <p></p></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span><p>&nbsp;</p></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Br, Dan<p></p></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span><p>&nbsp;</p></span></p>

<div>

<div>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">From:</span><span lang="EN-US"> pce-bounces <at> ietf.org
[mailto:pce-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of JP Vasseur<br>Sent: 31 July 2008 15:51<br>To: pce <at> ietf.org<br>Subject: [Pce] Adoption of two new WG documents (P2MP requirement and
applicability)<p></p></span></p>

</div>

</div>

<p class="MsoNormal"><p>&nbsp;</p></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Dear
WG,<br><br>
There was a good consensus to adopt the two following documents as PCE WG
documents during the meeting in Dublin. As usual, we would like to confirm on
the list.<br><br></span><span>draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-app-02.txt<br>
draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-req-05.txt<br></span><span><br>
Could you tell us if you are in favor (or not) of adopting these documents as
PCE WG documents ?<br><br>
Thanks.<br><br>
JP.</span> <p></p></p>

</div>

</div>
Picon

Re: Adoption of two new WG documents (P2MP requirement andapplicability)

Yes-
Deborah

From: pce-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of JP Vasseur
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 10:51 AM
To: pce <at> ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] Adoption of two new WG documents (P2MP requirement andapplicability)

Dear WG,

There was a good consensus to adopt the two following documents as PCE WG documents during the meeting in Dublin. As usual, we would like to confirm on the list.

draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-app-02.txt
draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-req-05.txt

Could you tell us if you are in favor (or not) of adopting these documents as PCE WG documents ?

Thanks.

JP.
<div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="180151415-05082008">Yes-</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="180151415-05082008">Deborah</span></div>
<br><div class="OutlookMessageHeader" lang="en-us" dir="ltr" align="left">
From: pce-bounces <at> ietf.org 
[mailto:pce-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of JP Vasseur<br>Sent: 
Thursday, July 31, 2008 10:51 AM<br>To: pce <at> ietf.org<br>Subject: 
[Pce] Adoption of two new WG documents (P2MP requirement 
andapplicability)<br><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<span>Dear WG,<br><br>There was a good consensus to adopt the 
two following documents as PCE WG documents during the meeting in Dublin. As 
usual, we would like to confirm on the list.<br><br></span><span>draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-app-02.txt<br>draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-req-05.txt<br><br>Could you tell us if you are in 
favor (or not) of adopting these documents as PCE WG documents 
?<br><br>Thanks.<br><br>JP.</span> </div>
Young Lee | 5 Aug 17:32 2008

P2MP drafts

Yes, in favor for both drafts.

 

Young

----------snipped-------------------------

Dear WG,

>

 

> There was a good consensus to adopt the two following documents as PCE

> WG documents during the meeting in Dublin. As usual, we would like to

> confirm on the list.

>

 

> draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-app-02.txt

> draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-req-05.txt

>

 

> Could you tell us if you are in favor (or not) of adopting these

> documents as PCE WG documents ?

>

 

> Thanks.

>

 

> JP.

 

<div>

<div class="Section1">

<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Yes, in favor for both
drafts. <p></p></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span><p>&nbsp;</p></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Young<p></p></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span>----------snipped-------------------------<p></p></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Dear WG,<p></p></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span>&gt;<p>&nbsp;</p></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span>&gt; There was a good
consensus to adopt the two following documents as PCE <p></p></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span>&gt; WG documents during the
meeting in Dublin.
As usual, we would like to <p></p></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span>&gt; confirm on the list.<p></p></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span>&gt;<p>&nbsp;</p></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span>&gt;
draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-app-02.txt<p></p></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span>&gt;
draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-req-05.txt<p></p></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span>&gt;<p>&nbsp;</p></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span>&gt; Could you tell us if
you are in favor (or not) of adopting these <p></p></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="FR">&gt; documents as
PCE WG documents ?<p></p></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span>&gt;<p>&nbsp;</p></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span>&gt; Thanks.<p></p></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span>&gt;<p>&nbsp;</p></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span>&gt; JP.<p></p></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal"><span></span><span><p>&nbsp;</p></span></p>

</div>

</div>
Greg Bernstein | 5 Aug 17:42 2008

Re: P2MP drafts

In favor of both drafts.

Regards

Greg B.

> ----------snipped-------------------------
>
> Dear WG,
>
> > 
>
> > There was a good consensus to adopt the two following documents as PCE
>
> > WG documents during the meeting in Dublin. As usual, we would like to
>
> > confirm on the list.
>
> > 
>
> > draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-app-02.txt
>
> > draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-req-05.txt
>
> > 
>
> > Could you tell us if you are in favor (or not) of adopting these
>
> > documents as PCE WG documents ?
>
> > 
>
> > Thanks.
>
> > 
>
> > JP.
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>   

--

-- 
===================================================
Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237


Gmane