Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-03.txt
Dear Julien, All. As promised, please find a new revision addressing the LC comments. Once again, thank you Julien for such a detailed review. Thanks, Dan. -Original Message- From: pce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-dra...@ietf.org Sent: 27 June 2012 22:59 To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-03.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-03.txt Pages : 31 Date: 2012-06-27 Abstract: 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. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-03 A diff from previous version is available at: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-03 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-03.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-03.txt Pages : 31 Date: 2012-06-27 Abstract: 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. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-03 A diff from previous version is available at: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk-03 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
Re: [Pce] WG Last Call of draft-ietf-pce-hierarchy-fwk
Hi Julien, Thanks for this review. We are making all the changes except: > Section 6 > I reckon "BGP-TE" spans a broader scope than H-PCE. I feel like > draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability could be an option. Note the > text should find a home before being dropped. In the latter case, 2 > references along the I-D will need a pointer update. If it is kept in > there, I would suggest to rephrase the section title (the reference tag > is all right) to avoid misunderstanding, e.g. "A Note on the Use of BGP > for TED Synchronization". We feel this section serves two purposes: 1. explain how BGP-TE is not necessarily a suitable substitute for H-PCE 2. show how BGP-TE may be a good northbound The first point (1st two paras of section 6) should stay. Second point is 3rd para of section 6. It is quite short. We agree it could be in applicability statement and we will add a forward pointer, but we think it is useful to keep the text here as well. As a compromise, we have split it out into a separate section named as you suggested. New revision soon. Cheers, Adrian (and probably Dan and the others :-) ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] 答复: I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-06.txt
Hi all, A new version of this draft (PCEP requirements for GMPLS) has been submitted. The authors think that this draft is ready for LC. Changes are as follows: (1) Label constraints for PCEP requirements have been refined in Section 4.1 and 4.2 respectively. (2) Some editorial refinements. Comments are welcome. Thanks Fatai -邮件原件- 发件人: pce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 internet-dra...@ietf.org 发送时间: 2012年6月27日 15:27 收件人: i-d-annou...@ietf.org 抄送: pce@ietf.org 主题: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-06.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 : Document: Author(s) : Tomohiro Otani Kenichi Ogaki Diego Caviglia Fatai Zhang Filename: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-06.txt Pages : 15 Date: 2012-06-27 Abstract: The initial effort of PCE WG is specifically focused on MPLS (Multi- protocol label switching). As a next step, this draft describes functional requirements for GMPLS (Generalized MPLS) application of PCE (Path computation element). The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-06 A diff from previous version is available at: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-06 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
[Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-06.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 : Document: Author(s) : Tomohiro Otani Kenichi Ogaki Diego Caviglia Fatai Zhang Filename: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-06.txt Pages : 15 Date: 2012-06-27 Abstract: The initial effort of PCE WG is specifically focused on MPLS (Multi- protocol label switching). As a next step, this draft describes functional requirements for GMPLS (Generalized MPLS) application of PCE (Path computation element). The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-06 A diff from previous version is available at: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-06 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ ___ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
