Adrian Farrel | 2 Mar 2008 11:33
Picon

Liaison Statement received from ITU-T SG15

Hi,

We have received the following liaison statement from the ITU-T Study Group 
15.

There is no request for action, but we should consider these comments when 
revising the PCE inter-layer drafts.

Thanks,
Adrian

===

Title: Liaison Reply to IETF PCE WG on Application of PCE to Inter-Layer 
Networks
Submission Date: 2008-02-29
From: Greg Jones(ITU-T SG 15) <tsbsg15 <at> itu.int>
To: IETF PCE WG(jpv <at> cisco.com,adrian <at> olddog.co.uk)
Cc: sob <at> harvard.edu, rcallon <at> juniper.net, dward <at> cisco.com
    pce <at> ietf.org, yoichi.maeda <at> ntt-at.co.jp, sjtrowbridge <at> alcatel-lucent.com
Reponse Contact: tsbsg15 <at> itu.int
Technical Contact: betts01 <at> nortel.com, hklam <at> alcatel-lucent.com

Purpose: For information

Thank you for bring the PCE drafts to our attention.  There has been recent 
work in SG15 on layer architecture and control plane discussion on 
interlayer aspects.

A recent Recommendation G.800 "Unified Functional Architecture of Transport 
(Continue reading)

JP Vasseur | 4 Mar 2008 16:28
Picon
Favicon

Slides

Hi,

"Presenters" thanks to send us your slides by March 7?

Thanks.

JP.

jeanlouis.leroux | 5 Mar 2008 19:50

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pce-of-02.txt

Hi all,

This version accounts for comments received on the list.
There is only one minor update: We added a text to indicate that the OF cannot be associated with a NO-PATH object.
We consider that this version is cooked and ready for WG last call.

Regards,

JL

-----Message d'origine-----
De : pce-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces <at> ietf.org] De la part de Internet-Drafts <at> ietf.org
Envoyé : mercredi 27 février 2008 20:45
À : i-d-announce <at> ietf.org
Cc : pce <at> ietf.org
Objet : [Pce] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-pce-of-02.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Encoding of Objective Functions in Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP)
	Author(s)	: J. Le Roux
	Filename	: draft-ietf-pce-of-02.txt
	Pages		: 17
	Date		: 2008-2-27
	
The computation of one or a series of Traffic Engineering Label 
   Switched Paths (TE LSPs) in MultiProtocol Label Switching (MPLS) and 
   Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks, is subject to a set of one or more 
   specific optimization criteria(s), referred to as an objective 
(Continue reading)

Adrian Farrel | 9 Mar 2008 19:40
Picon

Last call complete on PCEP

Hi,

Thanks to those who reviewed and commented during last call.

I saw a bunch of emails, and it is my reading that they mainly completed 
without any requirement for updates to the I-D.

*** If you disagree with this view, please speak up.

The issue that was left open was raised in the context of the XRO draft. The 
question was about harmonising the subobjects used to carry AS numbers. PCEP 
(as RSVP-TE) assumes 2 byte AS numbers. XRO allows 2 or 4 byte AS numbers. 
Should we converge, and if so, which way?

It is my (personal - not WG chair) opinion that it would be good to 
converge, so one of the I-Ds needs to change.
It is the opinion of the PCEP editors that it is convenient to restrict PCEP 
to 2 byte AS numbers on the grounds that we do not yet know how/if RSVP-TE 
will handle 4 byte AS numbers. New subobjects can be introduced for 4 byte 
AS numbers as and when needed.

That means that PCEP remains unchanged, and the XRO authors should update 
their I-D.

*** If you disagree with this view, please speak up.

Lastly, there were a couple of open questions from my review of the security 
section of the I-D. These related to key management and distribution. The 
editors and I don't know the answers to the questions. Since the IESG review 
will include a review by the Security Directorate, we can expect them to 
(Continue reading)

JP Vasseur | 10 Mar 2008 16:34
Picon
Favicon

Missing Slides

Missing slides:

3) Inter-AS Requirements for the Path Computation Element Communication
Protocol (PCECP) - draft-ietf-pce-interas-pcecp-reqs-04.txt
(Kenji/Raymond/Nabil - 10mn) [25]

10) Update on draft-ietf-pce-disc-mib-02.txt (Emile - 10mn) [80]

Thanks.

JP.

Jon Parker | 11 Mar 2008 15:57
Picon
Favicon

PCE DSTE - draft-ietf-pce-dste-00.txt

Hi PCE WG,

The PCE DSTE draft 
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-dste-00.txt) seems 
stable.

Please go through the document and send your feedback.

Cheers,
Jon
Young Lee | 11 Mar 2008 16:46
Favicon

PCE WG rechater discussion

Enhancing PCE interoperability and Scalability for WSON and beyond
 
Hi PCE'rs, at the upcomming meeting in Philadelphia we noticed some time for PCE
charter discussion. One area that has come up in the application of PCE to
wavelength switched optical networks (WSON) is the additional amount of
information needed to specify the constraints on the path.  In addition, there
has been concerns about the scalability of distributing this information and
precise link lambda utilization information via an IGP.
 
In section 6.7 of RFC4655 (PCE Architecture) on PCE TED synchronization a
description of "Out-of-band TED synchronization" (non-IGP based) is given and
some considerations of mechanisms are discussed. For the WSON case we have
discussed in our various drafts such a mechanism could prove very beneficial.
 
We think that the PCE charter should be extended to include a mechanism for out
of band TED distribution and synchronization. This communication of TED
information can be partial or complete and could flow from network elements,
management systems, and PCEs to other PCEs.
 
The use of management protocols for "Out-of-band TED synchronization" present a
number of difficulties. First, the information models are by necessity much
larger and complex than required for constrained path computation since those
models are used to support general network management (Fault, Configuration,
Accounting, Performance). Second, as seen in the WSON case, efficient transport
of incremental updates of resource state is key to scalability in a dynamic
networking environment. While IGPs have generally been strong in this area the
requirement of flooding the dynamic resource status information among all
network elements leads to scalability concerns. We envision that such a
capability could be acheived via an extendable path computation information
model roughly based on todays GMPLS routing models combined with a protocol
suitable for NE/NMS to PCE communications such as PCEP.
 
Regards
 
Greg B. and Young L. 
<div>
<div>Enhancing PCE interoperability and Scalability for WSON 
and beyond</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Hi PCE'rs, at the upcomming meeting in Philadelphia we 
noticed some time for PCE<br>charter discussion. One area that has come up in 
the application of PCE to<br>wavelength switched optical networks (WSON) is the 
additional amount of<br>information needed to specify the constraints on the 
path.&nbsp; In addition, there<br>has been concerns about the scalability of 
distributing this information and<br>precise link lambda utilization information 
via an IGP.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>In section 6.7 of RFC4655 (PCE Architecture) on PCE TED 
synchronization a<br>description of "Out-of-band TED synchronization" (non-IGP 
based) is given and <br>some considerations of mechanisms are discussed. For the 
WSON case we have<br>discussed in our various drafts such a mechanism could 
prove very beneficial.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>We think that the PCE charter should be extended to 
include a mechanism for out<br>of band TED distribution and synchronization. 
This communication of TED<br>information can be partial or complete and could 
flow from network elements,<br>management systems, and PCEs to other 
PCEs.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>The use of management protocols for "Out-of-band TED 
synchronization" present a <br>number of difficulties. First, the information 
models are by necessity much<br>larger and complex than required for constrained 
path computation since those<br>models are used to support general network 
management (Fault, Configuration,<br>Accounting, Performance). Second, as seen 
in the WSON case, efficient transport<br>of incremental updates of resource 
state is key to scalability in a dynamic<br>networking environment. While IGPs 
have generally been strong in this area the<br>requirement of flooding the 
dynamic resource status information among all<br>network elements leads to 
scalability concerns. We envision that such a<br>capability could be acheived 
via an extendable path computation information<br>model roughly based on todays 
GMPLS routing models combined with a protocol<br>suitable for NE/NMS to PCE 
communications such as PCEP.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Regards</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Greg B. and Young L.&nbsp; </div>
</div>
Adrian Farrel | 11 Mar 2008 20:41
Picon

Temporary PCEP codepoint registry

As JP just reminded us about the temporary codepoint registry for PCEP.

This exists until IANA gets control of the registries and should help you 
with protocol extensions and implementations.

It can be found at www.olddog.co.uk/pce.htm

Currently, it is a little out of date, but JP and I will work to get it in 
synch with the current PCEP I-D.

Cheers,
Adrian 

Adrian Farrel | 11 Mar 2008 20:44
Picon

Two working group last calls

Hi,

As discussed in the PCE WG meeting, this email commences a two week working 
group last call on the following two drafts.

BRPC
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-brpc-07.txt

Inter-AS PCEP requirements
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-interas-pcecp-reqs-04.txt

Please send comments to the list.

The last call will end on Monday March 31st at 12 noon GMT. That is almost 
three weeks (because it overlaps with the IETF meeting) but please review 
early and often.

Thanks,
Adrian 

Mach Chen | 12 Mar 2008 03:05
Favicon

Re: Two working group last calls

Hi,

Here are some comments about the BRPC draft:
 
   1、In the middle of Section 4.2
 
   "Note that PCE(i) only considers the entry BNs that provide
   connectivity from domain(i-1).  That is, the set BN-en(k,i-1) is only
   made of those BNs that provide connectivity from domain (i-1) to
   domain(i).  Furthermore, some BNs may be excluded according to policy
   constraints (either due to local policy or policies signaled in the
   path computation request)."
 
   As the definition of VSPT(i), is the "BN-en(k,i-1)" should be "BN-en(k,i)" ?
 
   
   2、In the draft, there are severval places using "BR", "BR-en", "BR-ex", but there is no such definition
about "BR", if I am correct, I guess it should be "BN", "BN-en", "BN-ex". Please check.


Best regards,
Mach

  
On 2008-03-12, at 03:45:49 Adrian Farrel wrote:

>Hi,
>
>As discussed in the PCE WG meeting, this email commences a two week working 
>group last call on the following two drafts.
>
>BRPC
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-brpc-07.txt

>
>Inter-AS PCEP requirements
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-interas-pcecp-reqs-04.txt

>
>Please send comments to the list.
>
>The last call will end on Monday March 31st at 12 noon GMT. That is almost 
>three weeks (because it overlaps with the IETF meeting) but please review 
>early and often.
>
>Thanks,
>Adrian 
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Pce mailing list
>Pce <at> ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce



_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Gmane