Re: [Pce] FW: New Version Notification for draft-lee-pce-transporting-te-data-00.txt

2014-07-17 Thread Leeyoung
Hi Jeff,

I have a similar comment with Dhruv. I am wondering how BGP-LS packages 
together TE information. Wouldn't it require IGP-TE to give TE link-state 
information to BGP-LS speaker, then BGP-LS packages them into a summary 
TE-info? If this is the case, I am not sure how convergence time of BGP-LS can 
improve that of IGP-TE? Please correct me if my understanding is not wrong. 

Thanks,
Young

-Original Message-
From: Dhruv Dhody [mailto:dhruv.i...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 11:35 AM
To: Jeff Tantsura
Cc: Leeyoung; pce@ietf.org; Greg Bernstein; Zhenghaomian
Subject: Re: [Pce] FW: New Version Notification for 
draft-lee-pce-transporting-te-data-00.txt

Hi Jeff,

I agree with some of the operational benefits listed for BGP, but I was 
wondering what is your thoughts w.r.t the convergence time for BGP-LS? Since 
its dependent on IGP-TE, wouldn't it suffer from the same convergence delay?

Dhruv

On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Jeff Tantsura jeff.tants...@ericsson.com 
wrote:
 Hi,

 While i find BGP-LS much more suitable for the distribution of TE data due to:
 -BGP is well understood (operations/ troubleshooting, etc); sync, HA 
 issues had be solved -Policies framework is comprehensive -BGP infra 
 in most cases is already in place -RR construct provides hierarchy 
 -many more to mention

 For the cases where BGP is not wanted (perceived as too complex/ doesn't 
 support data types needed)/ PCE infra has been deployed and practices well 
 understood it would make sense to use it.

 From use cases prospective i think it only addresses (i), the rest could be 
 addressed similarly well by BGP,  optical extensions are to come.

 Regards,
 Jeff

 On Jul 2, 2014, at 2:51 PM, Leeyoung leeyo...@huawei.com wrote:

 Hi,

 We have just published a new PCE draft concerning alternative ways of 
 transporting TE data that may not depend on IGP-TE or BGP-LS.

 The motivation for this work is a timely update of TE data directly from 
 nodes to PCE(s) to support scenarios like:

 (i) networks that do not support IGP-TE or BGP-LS but want to implement PCE.
 (ii) applications that require accurate and timely TE data that current 
 convergence time associated with flooding is not justified.
 (iii) reduction of node OH processing of flooding mechanisms (esp. 
 optical transport networks where there are large amounts of traffic 
 data and constraints due to OTN/WSON/Flexi-grid, etc. Note that also 
 BGP-LS is not supported in optical transport networks today)

 Your comment will always be appreciated.

 Thanks,
 Young (on behalf of other co-authors)


 -Original Message-
 From: internet-dra...@ietf.org [mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org]
 Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 4:32 PM
 To: Greg Bernstein; Dhruv Dhody; Greg Bernstein; Zhenghaomian; Dhruv 
 Dhody; Leeyoung; Leeyoung; Zhenghaomian
 Subject: New Version Notification for 
 draft-lee-pce-transporting-te-data-00.txt


 A new version of I-D, draft-lee-pce-transporting-te-data-00.txt
 has been successfully submitted by Young Lee and posted to the IETF 
 repository.

 Name:draft-lee-pce-transporting-te-data
 Revision:00
 Title:PCEP Extensions in Support of Transporting Traffic Engineering 
 Data
 Document date:2014-07-02
 Group:Individual Submission
 Pages:20
 URL:
 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lee-pce-transporting-te-data-00.txt
 Status: 
 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lee-pce-transporting-te-data/
 Htmlized:   
 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-pce-transporting-te-data-00


 Abstract:
   In order to compute and provide optimal paths, Path Computation
   Elements (PCEs) require an accurate and timely Traffic Engineering
   Database (TED). Traditionally this TED has been obtained from a link
   state routing protocol supporting traffic engineering extensions.
   This document discusses possible alternatives to TED creation. This
   document gives architectural alternatives for these enhancements and
   their potential impacts on network nodes, routing protocols, and
   PCE.




 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission 
 until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

 The IETF Secretariat

 ___
 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 mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce


Re: [Pce] FW: New Version Notification for draft-lee-pce-transporting-te-data-00.txt

2014-07-16 Thread Jeff Tantsura
Hi,

While i find BGP-LS much more suitable for the distribution of TE data due to:
-BGP is well understood (operations/ troubleshooting, etc); sync, HA issues had 
be solved 
-Policies framework is comprehensive
-BGP infra in most cases is already in place
-RR construct provides hierarchy
-many more to mention
 
For the cases where BGP is not wanted (perceived as too complex/ doesn't 
support data types needed)/ PCE infra has been deployed and practices well 
understood it would make sense to use it.

From use cases prospective i think it only addresses (i), the rest could be 
addressed similarly well by BGP,  optical extensions are to come.

Regards,
Jeff

 On Jul 2, 2014, at 2:51 PM, Leeyoung leeyo...@huawei.com wrote:
 
 Hi, 
 
 We have just published a new PCE draft concerning alternative ways of 
 transporting TE data that may not depend on IGP-TE or BGP-LS. 
 
 The motivation for this work is a timely update of TE data directly from 
 nodes to PCE(s) to support scenarios like:
 
 (i) networks that do not support IGP-TE or BGP-LS but want to implement PCE.
 (ii) applications that require accurate and timely TE data that current 
 convergence time associated with flooding is not justified.  
 (iii) reduction of node OH processing of flooding mechanisms (esp. optical 
 transport networks where there are large amounts of traffic data and 
 constraints due to OTN/WSON/Flexi-grid, etc. Note that also BGP-LS is not 
 supported in optical transport networks today)
 
 Your comment will always be appreciated. 
 
 Thanks,
 Young (on behalf of other co-authors)
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: internet-dra...@ietf.org [mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org] 
 Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 4:32 PM
 To: Greg Bernstein; Dhruv Dhody; Greg Bernstein; Zhenghaomian; Dhruv Dhody; 
 Leeyoung; Leeyoung; Zhenghaomian
 Subject: New Version Notification for 
 draft-lee-pce-transporting-te-data-00.txt
 
 
 A new version of I-D, draft-lee-pce-transporting-te-data-00.txt
 has been successfully submitted by Young Lee and posted to the IETF 
 repository.
 
 Name:draft-lee-pce-transporting-te-data
 Revision:00
 Title:PCEP Extensions in Support of Transporting Traffic Engineering 
 Data
 Document date:2014-07-02
 Group:Individual Submission
 Pages:20
 URL:
 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lee-pce-transporting-te-data-00.txt
 Status: 
 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lee-pce-transporting-te-data/
 Htmlized:   
 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-pce-transporting-te-data-00
 
 
 Abstract:
   In order to compute and provide optimal paths, Path Computation
   Elements (PCEs) require an accurate and timely Traffic Engineering
   Database (TED). Traditionally this TED has been obtained from a link
   state routing protocol supporting traffic engineering extensions.
   This document discusses possible alternatives to TED creation. This
   document gives architectural alternatives for these enhancements and
   their potential impacts on network nodes, routing protocols, and
   PCE.
 
 
 
 
 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission 
 until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
 
 The IETF Secretariat
 
 ___
 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