Daniel King | 1 Mar 2012 18:37
Picon

PCE Agenda Requests for IETF83

Hi All, 

IETF 83 is rapidly approaching so it's time to create the PCE agenda. If you
would like to request a slot for the PCE working group session please email
me (CC'ing our Chairs) with the topic/draft name and the amount of time you
would like. Please let us have your requests no later than Tuesday, March
13th.

Key cut-off dates:
http://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates-2012.html#IETF83

2012-03-05 (Monday): Internet Draft Cut-off for initial document (-00)
2012-03-12 (Monday): Internet Draft final submission (>00)

Draft Agenda (subject to change - final agenda to be posted on 2012-03-02):
http://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/83/agenda.txt

Br, Dan. 

Gino Carrozzo | 4 Mar 2012 09:21
Picon

Re: I-D Action: draft-carrozzo-pce-pcep-route-price-00.txt

Dear all

we've just posted a new I-D about extending PCEP with a new route 
information, the price.
As explained in the I-D, the route price is an additional info with 
respect to the route cost(s) currently well covered by existing PCE RFCs

And this extension seems to us quite useful in those scenarios where a 
Service Plane interfaces to PCE for elaborating its route offers.

Your feedbacks and comments would be very much appreciated.

br
Gino

On 04/03/2012 9.06, internet-drafts <at> ietf.org wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>
> 	Title           : PCEP extensions for the computation of route offers with price
> 	Author(s)       : Gino Carrozzo
>                            Giacomo Bernini
>                            Giada Landi
> 	Filename        : draft-carrozzo-pce-pcep-route-price-00.txt
> 	Pages           : 17
> 	Date            : 2012-03-04
>
>     The PCE defined in RFC4655 is a functional entity generally confined
>     in the control plane to elaborate explicit optimal routes with
>     related costs to be installed as [G]MPLS tunnels/LSPs.  The resulting
>     route cost(s)/metric(s) are Traffic Engineering indicators used by
(Continue reading)

Xian Zhang (Xian | 6 Mar 2012 01:49
Favicon

FW: New Version Notification for draft-zhang-pce-stateful-pce-app-00.txt

Dear PCErs,

  We have submitted a new draft entitled " Applicability of Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)", and it
is available at http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-zhang-pce-stateful-pce-app-00.txt.

  Your comments/suggestions are welcome. 

Regards,

Xian

-------

A new version of I-D, draft-zhang-pce-stateful-pce-app-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Xian
Zhang and posted to the IETF repository.

Filename:	 draft-zhang-pce-stateful-pce-app
Revision:	 00
Title:		 Applicability of Stateful Path Computation Element (PCE)
Creation date:	 2012-03-05
WG ID:		 Individual Submission
Number of pages: 20

Abstract:
   The Path Computation Element (PCE) provides a solution for Traffic
   Engineering (TE) based path calculation in large, multi-domain,
   multi-region, or multi-layer networks. Depending on whether a PCE
   keeps information about LSPs and reserved resource usage in the
   network or not, it can be categorized as either stateful or
   stateless.
(Continue reading)

Zhangfatai | 9 Mar 2012 02:35
Favicon

Status summary for three WG drafts

Hi all,

 

For these updates, I notified these updates on the mailing list a few months ago.

 

These drafts have been stable for quite long time and the authors think they are ready for LC.

 

Per Chairs’ suggestion, I would like to summarize the updates of the following three WG drafts to collect feedback.

 

Any comments and suggestions are welcome.

 

(1) draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints-05.txt

 

  A VENDOR-CONSTRAINT TLV was introduced based on Cyrils comment and I had off-line discuss with Cyril for this update.

 

(2) draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-06.txt

 

Refined some sentences in Section 3.2 to clarify the dependency between SWITCH-LAYER object and INTER-LAYER object based on Cyrils and Oscars comment.

 

(3) draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-05.txt

 

Just refined some editorial wording and re-organized the references, ie., no new requirements have been introduced.

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks
 
Fatai

 

<div>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Hi all,<p></p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><p>&nbsp;</p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">For these updates, I notified these updates on the mailing list a few months ago.<p></p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><p>&nbsp;</p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">These drafts have been stable for quite long time and the authors think they are ready for LC.<p></p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><p>&nbsp;</p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Per Chairs&rsquo; suggestion, I would like to summarize the updates of the following three WG drafts to collect feedback.<p></p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><p>&nbsp;</p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Any comments and suggestions are welcome.<p></p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><p>&nbsp;</p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">(1) draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints-05.txt<p></p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><p>&nbsp;</p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">&nbsp;&nbsp;A VENDOR-CONSTRAINT TLV was introduced based on Cyril</span><span lang="EN-US">&rsquo;</span><span lang="EN-US">s comment and I had off-line discuss with Cyril for this update.<p></p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><p>&nbsp;</p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">(2) draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-06.txt<p></p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><p>&nbsp;</p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Refined some sentences in Section 3.2 to clarify the dependency between SWITCH-LAYER object and INTER-LAYER object based on Cyril</span><span lang="EN-US">&rsquo;</span><span lang="EN-US">s
 and Oscar</span><span lang="EN-US">&rsquo;</span><span lang="EN-US">s comment.<p></p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><p>&nbsp;</p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">(3) draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-05.txt<p></p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US"><p>&nbsp;</p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span lang="EN-US">Just refined some editorial wording and re-organized the references, ie., no new requirements have been introduced.<p></p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><p>&nbsp;</p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><p>&nbsp;</p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><p>&nbsp;</p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><p>&nbsp;</p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><p>&nbsp;</p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Thanks<br>
&nbsp;<br>
Fatai</span><span lang="EN-US"><p></p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><p>&nbsp;</p></span></p>
</div>
</div>

New version of draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions (05)

Hi PCEers, 

A new version of draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions (version -05) was published
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-pcep-extensions-05) 

The changes address the comments raised.
 This revision remove LABEL_SET object in PCEP request and response, introduces Labels subobject in IRO
and XRO object and finaly allows for reoptimization  request to specify the existing label on the endpoints.

I would like to solicit your input on the document and its changes.
Your review and comments are greatly appreciated.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards
Cyril Margaria

Nokia Siemens Networks GmbH & Co. KG
NWS DWDM RD
St.Martin-Str. 76
D-81541 München
Germany
mailto:cyril.margaria <at> nsn.com
Phone: +49-89-5159-16934
Fax:   +49-89-5159-44-16934
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nokia Siemens Networks GmbH & Co. KG 
Sitz der Gesellschaft: München / Registered office: Munich 
Registergericht: München / Commercial registry: Munich, HRA 88537 
WEEE-Reg.-Nr.: DE 52984304 
Persönlich haftende Gesellschafterin / General Partner: Nokia Siemens Networks Management GmbH 
Geschäftsleitung / Board of Directors: Dr. Hermann Rodler, Lydia Sommer, Olaf Horsthemke 
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats / Chairman of supervisory board: Herbert Merz 
Sitz der Gesellschaft: München / Registered office: Munich 
Registergericht: München / Commercial registry: Munich, HRB 163416 

Daniel King | 11 Mar 2012 20:51
Picon

Re: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-01.txt

Hi PCE'rs,

Please find a new version of our H-PCE architecture draft. In summary the
new version has the following updates:

- A few changes mainly for typos and readability.
- A short section discussing the applicability of BGP-TE.
- Completely updated Security Considerations.

We have no plans to present this work in Paris, but we would be happy to
have discussions, especially with the H-PCE solution authors. We now
consider this to be the "final" version of the document and unless we see
discussion on or off the list that requires updates, we will ask the chairs
to take the I-D to WG last call shortly after Paris.

See you in Paris!
	
Br, Dan. 

-----Original Message-----
From: i-d-announce-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces <at> ietf.org]
On Behalf Of internet-drafts <at> ietf.org
Sent: 11 March 2012 19:42
To: i-d-announce <at> ietf.org
Cc: pce <at> ietf.org
Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-01.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           : The Application of the Path Computation Element
Architecture to the Determination of a Sequence of Domains in MPLS and GMPLS
	Author(s)       : Daniel King
                          Adrian Farrel
	Filename        : draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-01.txt
	Pages           : 31
	Date            : 2012-03-11

   Computing optimum routes for Label Switched Paths (LSPs) across
   multiple domains in MPLS Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) and GMPLS
   networks presents a problem because no single point of path
   computation is aware of all of the links and resources in each
   domain. A solution may be achieved using the Path Computation
   Element (PCE) architecture.

   Where the sequence of domains is known a priori, various techniques
   can be employed to derive an optimum path. If the domains are
   simply-connected, or if the preferred points of interconnection are
   also known, the Per-Domain Path Computation technique can be used.
   Where there are multiple connections between domains and there is
   no preference for the choice of points of interconnection, the
   Backward Recursive Path Computation Procedure (BRPC) can be used to
   derive an optimal path.

   This document examines techniques to establish the optimum path when
   the sequence of domains is not known in advance. The document
   shows how the PCE architecture can be extended to allow the optimum
   sequence of domains to be selected, and the optimum end-to-end path
   to be derived through the use of a hierarchical relationship between
   domains.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-01.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-01.txt

_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
I-D-Announce <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Oscar González de Dios | 12 Mar 2012 09:47
Picon

New Version of draft-gonzalezdedios-pce-reservation-state-01

Dear PCErs,

        We have updated and submitted a new version of PCEP Extensions for Temporary Reservation of Computed Path
Resources and Support for Limited Context State in PCE, trying to address the comments received in the
last IETF meetings and in ongoing discussions.

        The main changes in the document are clarifying the applicability of the Temporary Reservation and a add
ongoing discussions in the solution. Summing up:

        - Clarify what happens when TED is updated by its normal procedure and distinguish among two cases, one
where the reserved resource is uniquely identified in the  topology update, and other where it cannot be
uniquely identified.
        - Editor's note: Question the need of sending PCC-ID-REQ
        - Editor's note: Question the need of having a different object for the reservation response.

        Please consider taking a look at the document and giving us feedback.

        You can find the document in: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gonzalezdedios-pce-reservation-state-01


        Best Regards,

                Óscar



Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y
recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the
terms set out at
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Leeyoung | 12 Mar 2012 16:53
Favicon

new draft

Hi PCErs,

 

We have published a new draft that discusses how Stateful PCE can be used in the data center networking environments in the spirit of cooperative computation across network and application.

 

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-cso-enabled-path-computation/

 

Thanks for posting your comments and suggestion.

 

Best Regards,

Young

<div>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi PCErs, <p></p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><p>&nbsp;</p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We have published a new draft that discusses how Stateful PCE can be used in the data center networking environments in the spirit of cooperative computation across network and application.
<p></p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><p>&nbsp;</p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-cso-enabled-path-computation/">http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-cso-enabled-path-computation/</a><p></p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><p>&nbsp;</p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks for posting your comments and suggestion. <p></p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><p>&nbsp;</p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best Regards,<p></p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Young<p></p></p>
</div>
</div>
Olivier Dugeon | 12 Mar 2012 19:03

Re: New Version Notification for draft-dugeon-pce-ted-reqs-01.txt

Dear all,

We've just posted a new I-D about TED requirements for the PCE.
As explained in the I-D, we aim at identify the specific information to 
be stored in the TED and how it may be populated.

We skip the 00 version due to lack of time.

You could find the I-D as usual place here: 
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-dugeon-pce-ted-reqs-01.txt

Your feedbacks and comments would be very much appreciated.

Best Regards,

Olivier et al.

Le 12/03/2012 18:48, internet-drafts <at> ietf.org a écrit :
> A new version of I-D, draft-dugeon-pce-ted-reqs-01.txt has been successfully submitted by Olivier
Dugeon and posted to the IETF repository.
>
> Filename:	 draft-dugeon-pce-ted-reqs
> Revision:	 01
> Title:		 Path Computation Element (PCE) Traffic Engineering Database (TED) Requirements
> Creation date:	 2012-03-09
> WG ID:		 Individual Submission
> Number of pages: 12
>
> Abstract:
>     The Path Computation Element (PCE) working group (WG) has produced a
>     set of RFCs to standardize the behavior of the Path Computation
>     Element as a tool to help MPLS-TE and GMPLS LSP tunnels placement.
>     In the PCE architecture, a main assumption has been done concerning
>     the information that the PCE needs to perform its computation: the
>     Traffic Engineering Database (TED) contains all pertinent and
>     suitable information regarding the network that is in the scope of a
>     PCE.  Nevertheless, the TED requirements as well as the TED
>     information have not yet been formalized.  In addition, some recent
>     RFC (like the Backward Recursive Path Computation procedure) or WG
>     draft (like draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy ...) suffer from a lack of
>     information in the TED, leading to a non optimal result or to some
>     difficulties to deploy them.  This memo tries to identity some TED
>     requirements for the PCE.  It is split in two main section: the
>     identification of the specific information to be stored in the TED
>     and how it may be populated.
>
>
>
>
>
> The IETF Secretariat

-- **

Olivier Dugeon

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
zhang.fei3 | 22 Mar 2012 10:08
Picon

Re: I-D Action: draft-carrozzo-pce-pcep-route-price-00.txt


Hi Gino

An interesting idea.

If my understanding is not wrong, the draft describes the architecture and PCEP extensions that the NSBP (PCC) sends out the route offer computation request to Service-PCE.

Since that the NMS (PCC) sends out the PCReq messages to PCE is described in RFC4655, What the procedure looks like if NMS is also involved? or NMS will not appear when the route offer computation is adopted?  

Sorry that I am not familar with the TMF IPSPHERE Framework, hope your clarification.

Regards

Fei


Gino Carrozzo <g.carrozzo <at> nextworks.it>
发件人:  pce-bounces <at> ietf.org

2012-03-04 16:21

收件人
pce <at> ietf.org
抄送
主题
Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-carrozzo-pce-pcep-route-price-00.txt





Dear all

we've just posted a new I-D about extending PCEP with a new route
information, the price.
As explained in the I-D, the route price is an additional info with
respect to the route cost(s) currently well covered by existing PCE RFCs

And this extension seems to us quite useful in those scenarios where a
Service Plane interfaces to PCE for elaborating its route offers.

Your feedbacks and comments would be very much appreciated.

br
Gino

On 04/03/2012 9.06, internet-drafts <at> ietf.org wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>
>                  Title           : PCEP extensions for the computation of route offers with price
>                  Author(s)       : Gino Carrozzo
>                            Giacomo Bernini
>                            Giada Landi
>                  Filename        : draft-carrozzo-pce-pcep-route-price-00.txt
>                  Pages           : 17
>                  Date            : 2012-03-04
>
>     The PCE defined in RFC4655 is a functional entity generally confined
>     in the control plane to elaborate explicit optimal routes with
>     related costs to be installed as [G]MPLS tunnels/LSPs.  The resulting
>     route cost(s)/metric(s) are Traffic Engineering indicators used by
>     the network administrator (carrier) to optimize the usage of its
>     network resources.
>
>     In this document a framework for the usage of PCE in cooperation with
>     the Network Service and Business Plane (NSBP) is proposed, along with
>     related PCEP extensions.  The NSBP invokes this extended PCE (service
>     PCE) to trigger the computation of network service offers with
>     related price information.  The price of a network connectivity
>     service generally depends on strategic factors, but it could also be
>     influenced by the amount of mobilized network resources (along the
>     route), the ingress/egress interfaces/PoPs, etc.  Therefore, it could
>     be provided by an extended service-PCE as an additional route
>     information.
>
>     This document focuses on the extensions to the PCEP protocol in
>     support of the computation of route prices for intra- and inter-
>     domain network connectivity services.  Mechanisms for elaborating and
>     retrieving price information in the PCE are vendor-specific and out
>     of the scope of this document.
>
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carrozzo-pce-pcep-route-price-00.txt
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carrozzo-pce-pcep-route-price-00.txt
>
> _______________________________________________
> I-D-Announce mailing list
> I-D-Announce <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce


<div>
<br>Hi Gino
<br><br>An interesting idea.
<br><br>If my understanding is not wrong, the
draft describes the architecture and PCEP extensions that the NSBP (PCC)
sends out the route offer computation request to Service-PCE.
<br><br>Since that
the NMS (PCC) sends out the PCReq messages to PCE is described in RFC4655,
What the procedure looks like if NMS is also involved? or NMS will not
appear when the route offer computation is adopted? &nbsp;
<br><br>Sorry that I am not familar with the
TMF IPSPHERE Framework, hope
your clarification.
<br><br>Regards
<br><br>Fei
<br><br><br><table width="100%"><tr valign="top">
<td width="36%">Gino Carrozzo &lt;g.carrozzo <at> nextworks.it&gt;

<br>&#21457;&#20214;&#20154;: &nbsp;pce-bounces <at> ietf.org
<p>2012-03-04 16:21
</p>
</td>
<td width="63%">
<table width="100%">
<tr valign="top">
<td>
<div align="right">&#25910;&#20214;&#20154;</div>
</td>
<td>pce <at> ietf.org
</td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top">
<td>
<div align="right">&#25220;&#36865;</div>
</td>
<td>
</td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top">
<td>
<div align="right">&#20027;&#39064;</div>
</td>
<td>Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-carrozzo-pce-pcep-route-price-00.txt</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br><table><tr valign="top">
<td>
</td>
<td></td>
</tr></table>
<br>
</td>
</tr></table>
<br><br><br>Dear all<br><br>
we've just posted a new I-D about extending PCEP with a new route <br>
information, the price.<br>
As explained in the I-D, the route price is an additional info with <br>
respect to the route cost(s) currently well covered by existing PCE RFCs<br><br>
And this extension seems to us quite useful in those scenarios where a
<br>
Service Plane interfaces to PCE for elaborating its route offers.<br><br>
Your feedbacks and comments would be very much appreciated.<br><br>
br<br>
Gino<br><br>
On 04/03/2012 9.06, internet-drafts <at> ietf.org wrote:<br>
&gt; A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Title
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; : PCEP extensions for the computation
of route offers with price<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Author(s)
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; : Gino Carrozzo<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Giacomo Bernini<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Giada Landi<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Filename
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;: draft-carrozzo-pce-pcep-route-price-00.txt<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Pages
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; : 17<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Date
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;: 2012-03-04<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; The PCE defined in RFC4655 is a functional entity generally
confined<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; in the control plane to elaborate explicit optimal routes
with<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; related costs to be installed as [G]MPLS tunnels/LSPs.
&nbsp;The resulting<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; route cost(s)/metric(s) are Traffic Engineering indicators
used by<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; the network administrator (carrier) to optimize the
usage of its<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; network resources.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; In this document a framework for the usage of PCE in
cooperation with<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; the Network Service and Business Plane (NSBP) is proposed,
along with<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; related PCEP extensions. &nbsp;The NSBP invokes this
extended PCE (service<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; PCE) to trigger the computation of network service offers
with<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; related price information. &nbsp;The price of a network
connectivity<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; service generally depends on strategic factors, but
it could also be<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; influenced by the amount of mobilized network resources
(along the<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; route), the ingress/egress interfaces/PoPs, etc. &nbsp;Therefore,
it could<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; be provided by an extended service-PCE as an additional
route<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; information.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; This document focuses on the extensions to the PCEP
protocol in<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; support of the computation of route prices for intra-
and inter-<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; domain network connectivity services. &nbsp;Mechanisms
for elaborating and<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; retrieving price information in the PCE are vendor-specific
and out<br>
&gt; &nbsp; &nbsp; of the scope of this document.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; A URL for this Internet-Draft is:<br>
&gt; http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carrozzo-pce-pcep-route-price-00.txt<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:<br>
&gt; ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:<br>
&gt; ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carrozzo-pce-pcep-route-price-00.txt<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; _______________________________________________<br>
&gt; I-D-Announce mailing list<br>
&gt; I-D-Announce <at> ietf.org<br>
&gt; https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce<br>
&gt; Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html<br>
&gt; or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt<br>
&gt;<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Pce mailing list<br>
Pce <at> ietf.org<br>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce<br><br>
<br>
</div>

Gmane