From julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com Mon Nov 2 09:04:59 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E73473A6904 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 09:04:59 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.371 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.371 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.611, BAYES_05=-1.11, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1ZNpxKVSc7T5 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 09:04:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from r-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (r-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com [217.108.152.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB3B93A67A5 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 09:04:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.40]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 2 Nov 2009 18:04:48 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 18:04:47 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: PCE Agenda and Slides for IETF 76 Thread-Index: Acpb3pVBeJygvL+pQ7O0AKu5MIGbww== From: To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Nov 2009 17:04:49.0165 (UTC) FILETIME=[960AFBD0:01CA5BDE] Subject: [Pce] PCE Agenda and Slides for IETF 76 X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:05:00 -0000 Hi. The updated agenda for the PCE meeting in Hiroshima is on line: = http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09nov/agenda/pce.html If you have any = comment, please contact the chairs. If your name appears as a speaker, please send your slides not later = than next Tuesday, November 10th. Social tickets will be preempted if = slides are not provided at that time. ;-) Thanks JP & Julien From zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn Mon Nov 2 18:30:24 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 838303A6862 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 18:30:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -97.764 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.764 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.988, BAYES_20=-0.74, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE=0.76, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5iTkfPPwfLiZ for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 18:30:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx5.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A89F3A67FB for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 18:30:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.30.17.99] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 111641441414862; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:03:35 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.30.3.19] by [10.30.17.99] with StormMail ESMTP id 16639.2637998787; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:17:32 +0800 (CST) Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse2.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id nA32ReuW053371; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:27:40 +0800 (CST) (envelope-from zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn) To: pce@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005 Message-ID: From: zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:27:34 +0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 6.5.4|March 27, 2005) at 2009-11-03 10:27:35, Serialize complete at 2009-11-03 10:27:35 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 000DDEA848257663_=" X-MAIL: mse2.zte.com.cn nA32ReuW053371 Cc: jpv@cisco.com Subject: [Pce] I-D Action:draft-zhang-pce-reqs-for-otn-00 X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 02:30:24 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 000DDEA848257663_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Hi PCEers We asked a time slot for the I-D:draft-zhang-pce-reqs-for-otn-00. Because the threshold BER value of an optical path is affected by the FEC and modulation format that the signal adopts, there are some PCEP requirements for PCE applied in OTN networks. Here we give two scenarios: One is that PCC has selected the modulation and FEC function of the signal and limited the threshold of the Pre-FEC BER values, then requests PCE to find an optical path who can satisfy the requirements. PCE returns the results back to PCC. The other is that PCC just requests the path computation (PCC has not loaded the FEC and modulation functions ), PCE determines the FEC/modulation of the signal(including PCC and every opaque optical node in the path), then calculates the BER value, and returns these parameters back to PCC. PCC uses this information to setup the LSP. Be appreciated to Julien & JP for their kindly reminding. Any comments are welcome. :) Fei --=_alternative 000DDEA848257663_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Hi PCEers

We asked a time slot for the I-D:draft-zhang-pce-reqs-for-otn-00.

Because the threshold BER value of an optical path is affected by the FEC and modulation format that the signal adopts, there are some PCEP requirements for PCE applied in OTN networks.

Here we give two scenarios:

One is that PCC has selected the modulation and FEC function of the signal and limited the threshold of the Pre-FEC BER values, then requests PCE to find an optical path who can satisfy the requirements. PCE returns the results back to PCC.

The other is that PCC just requests the path computation (PCC has not loaded the FEC and modulation functions ), PCE determines the FEC/modulation of the signal(including PCC and every opaque optical node in the path), then calculates the BER value, and returns these parameters back to PCC. PCC uses this information to setup the LSP.

Be appreciated to Julien & JP for their kindly reminding.

Any comments are welcome.

:)

Fei
--=_alternative 000DDEA848257663_=-- From julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com Tue Nov 3 08:48:19 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7AC13A6A31 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 08:48:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QMN3YlF8nFlt for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 08:48:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com [195.101.245.15]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA8083A680C for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 08:48:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.192.128.40]) by ftrdsmtp1.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:48:36 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:48:35 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Charter and Multi-Domain Thread-Index: AcpcpXvs4MMqwyQMTBiDW+3hHask2w== From: To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Nov 2009 16:48:36.0493 (UTC) FILETIME=[7CB2C3D0:01CA5CA5] Subject: [Pce] Charter and Multi-Domain X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:48:20 -0000 Hi PCE members. As you may (SHOULD ;-) ) have noticed in our agenda for Hiroshima, = Daniel King will present his I-D named "The Application of the PCE = Architecture to the Determination of a Sequence of Domains in MPLS & = GMPLS" (introduced during the Stockholm meeting). Nonetheless our = current charter soberly says: "The PCE WG will work on application of this model within a single = Domain or within a small group of domains (where a domain is a layer, IGP area or Autonomous System with limited visibility from the head-end LSR). At this time, applying this model to large groups of domains such as the Internet is not thought to be possible, and the PCE WG will not spend energy on that topic." In other words, we are flirting with our charter border and the scope of = some drafts depends on it. In this context, the chairs would like to get = a feedback from the WG on evolving towards larger groups of domains. Does the WG think we are now ready to follow this path? Do you have = operational requirements and/or concerns in mind in terms of = applicability, order of magnitude, implementation...? Comments are very = welcome. You are probably aware that we have passed over a milestone about = rechartering: beyond the upcoming meeting, your feedback will be useful = input for the envisioned charter update (targetted for the end of the = year). Many thanks JP & Julien From daniel@olddog.co.uk Tue Nov 3 12:08:37 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DB4028C180 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:08:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.532 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.068, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KVRXzQ7n+U-Z for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:08:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E49A3A682E for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:08:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id nA3K8eEa015944; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 20:08:45 GMT Received: from Serenity (88-97-23-122.dsl.zen.co.uk [88.97.23.122]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id nA3K8dQX015940; Tue, 3 Nov 2009 20:08:39 GMT From: "Daniel King" To: , References: In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 20:08:39 -0000 Message-ID: <001401ca5cc1$6fc81eb0$4f585c10$@co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcpcpXvs4MMqwyQMTBiDW+3hHask2wAFbZWw Content-Language: en-gb Subject: Re: [Pce] Charter and Multi-Domain X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:08:37 -0000 Hi Julien, all. Good topic. When we starting to work on the H-PCE architecture (draft-king-pce-hierarchy-fwk-xx) it was in response to perceived scaling concerns of BRPC, if the sequence of domains was not pre-defined. Our view is that solving the domain routing problem for as few as six interconnected domains could be really hard if BRPC is used without a pre-defined domain sequence. So, I think our I-D is within the current WG charter. I'd actually go a step further and say that our I-D is not aimed at a larger set of domains at this stage. Lastly, I do welcome the WG discussing extending the scope of the charter. Perhaps it may be worth defining what we mean by a "larger groups of domains", it's certainly >2 and X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B8933A691F for ; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:19:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.714 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.714 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.884, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 13-vktAMN2EN for ; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:19:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91E4C3A6832 for ; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:19:11 -0800 (PST) Authentication-Results: ams-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlAAAIK29kqQ/uCWe2dsb2JhbACCIDGZJgEBFiQGpjyWPYQ+BA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,704,1249257600"; d="scan'208,217";a="53908747" Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.150]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Nov 2009 20:19:35 +0000 Received: from xbh-ams-101.cisco.com (xbh-ams-101.cisco.com [144.254.74.71]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nA8KJZCX024939; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 20:19:35 GMT Received: from xfe-ams-102.cisco.com ([144.254.231.94]) by xbh-ams-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sun, 8 Nov 2009 21:19:35 +0100 Received: from ams-jvasseur-8713.cisco.com ([10.55.201.132]) by xfe-ams-102.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sun, 8 Nov 2009 21:19:34 +0100 Message-Id: From: JP Vasseur To: Daniel King In-Reply-To: <001401ca5cc1$6fc81eb0$4f585c10$@co.uk> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-63-231499693 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 21:19:33 +0100 References: <001401ca5cc1$6fc81eb0$4f585c10$@co.uk> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Nov 2009 20:19:34.0927 (UTC) FILETIME=[C9C741F0:01CA60B0] X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-8.0.0.1181-5.600.1016-16998.001 X-TM-AS-Result: No--30.957900-8.000000-31 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Charter and Multi-Domain X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:19:13 -0000 --Apple-Mail-63-231499693 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Dan, *co-chair hat off* On Nov 3, 2009, at 9:08 PM, Daniel King wrote: > Hi Julien, all. > > Good topic. > > When we starting to work on the H-PCE architecture > (draft-king-pce-hierarchy-fwk-xx) it was in response to perceived > scaling > concerns of BRPC, if the sequence of domains was not pre-defined. > Our view > is that solving the domain routing problem for as few as six > interconnected > domains could be really hard if BRPC is used without a pre-defined > domain > sequence. > Two comments: 1) I personally think that the proposed mechanism is technically *good* 2) That being said, this raises the question on whether we need such mechanism considering the relatively small scale of current deployments and I would welcome any evidence of lack of scalability of BRPC in small scale network deployments. > So, I think our I-D is within the current WG charter. I'd actually > go a step > further and say that our I-D is not aimed at a larger set of domains > at this > stage. > > Lastly, I do welcome the WG discussing extending the scope of the > charter. > Perhaps it may be worth defining what we mean by a "larger groups of > domains", it's certainly >2 and a good > reference point when defining/discussing a large group of domains? > Well, as Adrian knows, I definitely do not like specifying hard numbers when it comes to defining IP technologies since I do believe that one of the reasons of the success of the IP is precisely because no numbers were specified in the original specifications. But yes 20 seems a good reference point. Cheers. JP. > Br, Dan. > > -----Original Message----- > From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com > Sent: 03 November 2009 16:49 > To: pce@ietf.org > Subject: [Pce] Charter and Multi-Domain > > Hi PCE members. > > As you may (SHOULD ;-) ) have noticed in our agenda for Hiroshima, > Daniel > King will present his I-D named "The Application of the PCE > Architecture to > the Determination of a Sequence of Domains in MPLS & > GMPLS" (introduced > during the Stockholm meeting). Nonetheless our current charter > soberly says: > "The PCE WG will work on application of this model within a single > Domain > or within a small group of domains (where a domain is a layer, IGP > area > or Autonomous System with limited visibility from the head-end LSR). > At > this time, applying this model to large groups of domains such as the > Internet is not thought to be possible, and the PCE WG will not spend > energy on that topic." > > In other words, we are flirting with our charter border and the > scope of > some drafts depends on it. In this context, the chairs would like to > get a > feedback from the WG on evolving towards larger groups of domains. > Does the WG think we are now ready to follow this path? Do you have > operational requirements and/or concerns in mind in terms of > applicability, > order of magnitude, implementation...? Comments are very welcome. > > You are probably aware that we have passed over a milestone about > rechartering: beyond the upcoming meeting, your feedback will be > useful > input for the envisioned charter update (targetted for the end of > the year). > > Many thanks > > JP & Julien > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > --Apple-Mail-63-231499693 Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi = Dan,

*co-chair hat off*

On = Nov 3, 2009, at 9:08 PM, Daniel King wrote:

Hi = Julien, all.

Good topic.

When we starting to work on the = H-PCE architecture
(draft-king-pce-hierarchy-fwk-xx) it was in = response to perceived scaling
concerns of BRPC, if the sequence of = domains was not pre-defined. Our view
is that solving the domain = routing problem for as few as six interconnected
domains could be = really hard if BRPC is used without a pre-defined domain
sequence. =  


Two = comments:
1) I personally think that the proposed mechanism is = technically *good*
2) That being said, this raises the = question on whether we need such mechanism = considering 
the relatively small scale of current = deployments and I would welcome any evidence of lack = of
scalability of BRPC in small scale network = deployments. 

So, I think = our I-D is within the current WG charter. I'd actually go a = step
further and say that our I-D is not aimed at a larger set of = domains at this
stage.

Lastly, I do welcome the WG discussing = extending the scope of the charter.
Perhaps it may be worth defining = what we mean by a "larger groups of
domains", it's certainly >2 = and <Internet. Would up to 20 domains be a good
reference point = when defining/discussing a large group of domains? =


Well, as Adrian knows, I = definitely do not like specifying hard numbers when it comes to = defining
IP technologies since I do believe that = one of the reasons of the success of the IP is precisely = because
no numbers were specified in the original = specifications. But yes 20 seems a good reference = point.

Cheers.

JP.
=
Br, Dan.

-----Original = Message-----
From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf Of
julien.meuric@orange-ftgr= oup.com
Sent: 03 November 2009 16:49
To: = pce@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] Charter and Multi-Domain

Hi PCE = members.

As you may (SHOULD ;-) ) have noticed in our agenda for = Hiroshima, Daniel
King will present his I-D named "The Application of = the PCE Architecture to
the Determination of a Sequence of Domains in = MPLS & GMPLS" (introduced
during the Stockholm meeting). = Nonetheless our current charter soberly says:
"The PCE WG will work = on application of this model within a single Domain
or within a small = group of domains (where a domain is a layer, IGP area
or Autonomous = System with limited visibility from the head-end LSR). At
this time, = applying this model to large groups of domains such as the
Internet = is not thought to be possible, and the PCE WG will not spend
energy = on that topic."

In other words, we are flirting with our charter = border and the scope of
some drafts depends on it. In this context, = the chairs would like to get a
feedback from the WG on evolving = towards larger groups of domains.
Does the WG think we are now ready = to follow this path? Do you have
operational requirements and/or = concerns in mind in terms of applicability,
order of magnitude, = implementation...? Comments are very welcome.

You are probably = aware that we have passed over a milestone about
rechartering: beyond = the upcoming meeting, your feedback will be useful
input for the = envisioned charter update (targetted for the end of the = year).

Many thanks

JP & = Julien
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing = list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

<= /div>

= --Apple-Mail-63-231499693-- From meral.shirazipour@polymtl.ca Thu Nov 12 12:28:44 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2AE43A6359 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:28:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RlgcMTyB9LDg for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:28:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C93D93A67DA for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:28:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (imp-4-2.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.77]) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nACKTAEr009484; Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:29:11 -0500 Received: from clnt01-230-250.vpn.polymtl.ca (clnt01-230-250.vpn.polymtl.ca [132.207.230.250]) by www.imp.polymtl.ca (Horde MIME library) with HTTP; Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:29:09 -0500 Message-ID: <20091112152909.0rbrujwpww0w4gw8@www.imp.polymtl.ca> Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:29:09 -0500 From: Meral Shirazipour To: "julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com" References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.0.4) X-Poly-FromMTA: (imp-4-2.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.77]) at Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:29:10 +0000 Cc: "pce@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Pce] Charter and Multi-Domain X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:28:44 -0000 Hello, I am with Daniel and JP regarding the need to start considering multiple domains and serious scalability pitfalls that might occur. Just a comment regarding setting numbers: although 20 domains would be a good start for testing some of the different ID?s and proposals, I think it would be best to keep in mind that any solution should scale to other numbers >20. If a proposal is not scalable, at least provide the mechanism to deal with the situation: for example by detecting the problem (monitoring flooding, waiting times etc) and reporting back with notification error etc.). To this end I propose adding a Scalability Section to all the upcoming IDs. Regards, Meral "julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com" a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0: > Hi PCE members. > > As you may (SHOULD ;-) ) have noticed in our agenda for Hiroshima, > Daniel King will present his I-D named "The Application of the PCE > Architecture to the Determination of a Sequence of Domains in MPLS & > GMPLS" (introduced during the Stockholm meeting). Nonetheless our > current charter soberly says: > "The PCE WG will work on application of this model within a single Domain > or within a small group of domains (where a domain is a layer, IGP area > or Autonomous System with limited visibility from the head-end LSR). At > this time, applying this model to large groups of domains such as the > Internet is not thought to be possible, and the PCE WG will not spend > energy on that topic." > > In other words, we are flirting with our charter border and the scope > of some drafts depends on it. In this context, the chairs would like > to get a feedback from the WG on evolving towards larger groups of > domains. > Does the WG think we are now ready to follow this path? Do you have > operational requirements and/or concerns in mind in terms of > applicability, order of magnitude, implementation...? Comments are > very welcome. > > You are probably aware that we have passed over a milestone about > rechartering: beyond the upcoming meeting, your feedback will be > useful input for the envisioned charter update (targetted for the end > of the year). > > Many thanks > > JP & Julien > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > From daniel@olddog.co.uk Mon Nov 23 06:32:08 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E44E428C0EE for ; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:32:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.091 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.091 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.093, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J0aCQl2Q-0PR for ; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:32:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B57A23A686E for ; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:32:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id nANEViCr001673 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:31:49 GMT Received: from Serenity (88-97-23-122.dsl.zen.co.uk [88.97.23.122]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id nANEVbvK001524 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:31:41 GMT From: "Daniel King" To: Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:31:08 -0000 Message-ID: <001401ca6c49$acca4530$065ecf90$@co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0015_01CA6C49.ACCA4530" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcpsSZivFmiX+rEnSEqt9NOMJRpP9g== Content-Language: en-gb Subject: [Pce] Draft PCE Minutes for IETF 76 X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:32:09 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01CA6C49.ACCA4530 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello PCE mailing list, Please find the draft pce minutes for our IETF 76 session: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09nov/minutes/pce.htm If you have any comments or requests please email the chairs and myself. I did have one question. A "David" made a point during Greg's PCE TED presentation. Unfortunately I did not manage to note his surname, so if someone can provide that I would be grateful. Please let us have any comments by Monday, December 7th, 2009. Br, Dan ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01CA6C49.ACCA4530 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello PCE mailing list,

 

Please find the draft pce minutes for our IETF 76 = session:

 

http://www= .ietf.org/proceedings/09nov/minutes/pce.htm

 

If you have any comments or requests please email = the chairs and myself. I did have one question. A “David” made a point = during Greg’s PCE TED presentation. Unfortunately I did not manage to = note his surname, so if someone can provide that I would be grateful. =

 

Please let us have any comments by  Monday, = December 7th, 2009.  

 

Br, Dan

------=_NextPart_000_0015_01CA6C49.ACCA4530-- From adrian@olddog.co.uk Wed Nov 25 05:07:16 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA21F3A68FD for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:07:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Oah2G8qgICcE for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:07:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 953583A6935 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:07:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id nAPD6uCH030031; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:07:01 GMT Received: from your029b8cecfe (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id nAPD6m6I029890; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:06:53 GMT Message-ID: <89BE77C5049D4F5981EE392050F0B8FF@your029b8cecfe> From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "Meral Shirazipour" , References: <20091112152909.0rbrujwpww0w4gw8@www.imp.polymtl.ca> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:02:21 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by asmtp2.iomartmail.com id nAPD6m6I029890 Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Charter and Multi-Domain X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Adrian Farrel List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:07:16 -0000 Hi Meral, Please be aware of the limitations of the current PCE charter. If the WG=20 wants to go beyond the constraint of a "small group of domains" then it w= ill=20 need to recharter. As JP and Julien indicated, such an attempt to rechart= er=20 needs to be accompanied by a discussion of the operational requirements=20 and/or concerns in terms of applicability, order of magnitude,=20 implementation... That said, it is certainly worthwhile to add scalability considerations t= o=20 I-Ds. The authors of draft-king-hierarchy-fwk intend to do some analysis = of=20 the use of BRPC in a small domain mesh when the domain sequence is not kn= own=20 in advance (and must be determined using BRPC). Cheers, Adrian ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Meral Shirazipour" To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 8:29 PM Subject: Re: [Pce] Charter and Multi-Domain Hello, I am with Daniel and JP regarding the need to start considering multiple domains and serious scalability pitfalls that might occur. Just a comment regarding setting numbers: although 20 domains would be a good start for testing some of the different ID?s and proposals, I think it would be best to keep in mind that any solution should scale to other numbers >20. If a proposal is not scalable, at least provide the mechanism to deal with the situation: for example by detecting the problem (monitoring flooding, waiting times etc) and reporting back with notification error etc.). To this end I propose adding a Scalability Section to all the upcoming IDs. Regards, Meral "julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com" a =C3=A9crit=C2 : > Hi PCE members. > > As you may (SHOULD ;-) ) have noticed in our agenda for Hiroshima, Dani= el=20 > King will present his I-D named "The Application of the PCE Architectur= e=20 > to the Determination of a Sequence of Domains in MPLS & GMPLS" (introdu= ced=20 > during the Stockholm meeting). Nonetheless our current charter soberly=20 > says: > "The PCE WG will work on application of this model within a single Doma= in > or within a small group of domains (where a domain is a layer, IGP area > or Autonomous System with limited visibility from the head-end LSR). At > this time, applying this model to large groups of domains such as the > Internet is not thought to be possible, and the PCE WG will not spend > energy on that topic." > > In other words, we are flirting with our charter border and the scope o= f=20 > some drafts depends on it. In this context, the chairs would like to ge= t a=20 > feedback from the WG on evolving towards larger groups of domains. > Does the WG think we are now ready to follow this path? Do you have=20 > operational requirements and/or concerns in mind in terms of=20 > applicability, order of magnitude, implementation...? Comments are very= =20 > welcome. > > You are probably aware that we have passed over a milestone about=20 > rechartering: beyond the upcoming meeting, your feedback will be useful= =20 > input for the envisioned charter update (targetted for the end of the=20 > year). > > Many thanks > > JP & Julien > _______________________________________________ > 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