From udayasree.palle@huawei.com Sun Jan 5 22:40:50 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 112B81ADF69 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 2014 22:40:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.739 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.739 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wknekzfw97oH for ; Sun, 5 Jan 2014 22:40:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF8B51ADFBA for ; Sun, 5 Jan 2014 22:40:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BCE20947; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 06:40:38 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 06:40:18 +0000 Received: from SZXEML408-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.95) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 06:40:36 +0000 Received: from szxeml561-mbx.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.101]) by szxeml408-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.95]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 14:40:29 +0800 From: Udayasree palle To: "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-00.txt Thread-Index: AQHO+md+eVoXEJci3kqSzLmSLn4QZJp3XrQg Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 06:40:29 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.18.147.110] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: [Pce] FW: New Version Notification for draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-00.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 06:40:50 -0000 SGkgQWxsLA0KDQpUbyBraWNrIG9mZiAyMDE0LCB3ZSBoYXZlIGEgbmV3IGRyYWZ0IHJlZ2FyZGlu ZyBTdGF0ZWZ1bCBQQ0UgZm9yIFAyTVAuDQpZb3VyIGNvbW1lbnRzL2ZlZWRiYWNrL3N1Z2dlc3Rp b24gYXJlIHdlbGNvbWUhIA0KDQpSZWdhcmRzLA0KVWRheWEgLyBEaHJ1diANCg0KLS0tLS1Pcmln aW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0NCkZyb206IGludGVybmV0LWRyYWZ0c0BpZXRmLm9yZyBbbWFpbHRv OmludGVybmV0LWRyYWZ0c0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gDQpTZW50OiAxNiBEZWNlbWJlciAyMDEzIDE5OjMz DQpUbzogRGhydXYgRGhvZHk7IFVkYXlhc3JlZSBwYWxsZQ0KU3ViamVjdDogTmV3IFZlcnNpb24g Tm90aWZpY2F0aW9uIGZvciBkcmFmdC1wYWxsZS1wY2Utc3RhdGVmdWwtcGNlLXAybXAtMDAudHh0 DQoNCg0KQSBuZXcgdmVyc2lvbiBvZiBJLUQsIGRyYWZ0LXBhbGxlLXBjZS1zdGF0ZWZ1bC1wY2Ut cDJtcC0wMC50eHQNCmhhcyBiZWVuIHN1Y2Nlc3NmdWxseSBzdWJtaXR0ZWQgYnkgVWRheWFzcmVl IFBhbGxlIGFuZCBwb3N0ZWQgdG8gdGhlIElFVEYgcmVwb3NpdG9yeS4NCg0KRmlsZW5hbWU6CSBk cmFmdC1wYWxsZS1wY2Utc3RhdGVmdWwtcGNlLXAybXANClJldmlzaW9uOgkgMDANClRpdGxlOgkJ IFBhdGggQ29tcHV0YXRpb24gRWxlbWVudCAoUENFKSBQcm90b2NvbCBFeHRlbnNpb25zIGZvciBT dGF0ZWZ1bCBQQ0UgdXNhZ2UgZm9yIFBvaW50LXRvLU11bHRpcG9pbnQgVHJhZmZpYyBFbmdpbmVl cmluZyBMYWJlbCBTd2l0Y2hlZCBQYXRocw0KQ3JlYXRpb24gZGF0ZToJIDIwMTMtMTItMTYNCkdy b3VwOgkJIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3VibWlzc2lvbg0KTnVtYmVyIG9mIHBhZ2VzOiAxNQ0KVVJMOiAg ICAgICAgICAgICBodHRwOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL2ludGVybmV0LWRyYWZ0cy9kcmFmdC1wYWxs ZS1wY2Utc3RhdGVmdWwtcGNlLXAybXAtMDAudHh0DQpTdGF0dXM6ICAgICAgICAgIGh0dHA6Ly9k YXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvZHJhZnQtcGFsbGUtcGNlLXN0YXRlZnVsLXBjZS1wMm1w DQpIdG1saXplZDogICAgICAgIGh0dHA6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0LXBhbGxl LXBjZS1zdGF0ZWZ1bC1wY2UtcDJtcC0wMA0KDQoNCkFic3RyYWN0Og0KICAgVGhlIFBhdGggQ29t cHV0YXRpb24gRWxlbWVudCAoUENFKSBoYXMgYmVlbiBpZGVudGlmaWVkIGFzIGFuDQogICBhcHBy b3ByaWF0ZSB0ZWNobm9sb2d5IGZvciB0aGUgZGV0ZXJtaW5hdGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgcGF0aHMgb2Yg cG9pbnQtDQogICB0by1tdWx0aXBvaW50IChQMk1QKSBURSBMU1BzLiAgW0ktRC5pZXRmLXBjZS1z dGF0ZWZ1bC1wY2UtYXBwXQ0KICAgcHJlc2VudHMgc2V2ZXJhbCB1c2UgY2FzZXMsIGRlbW9uc3Ry YXRpbmcgc2NlbmFyaW9zIHRoYXQgYmVuZWZpdCBmcm9tDQogICB0aGUgZGVwbG95bWVudCBvZiBh IHN0YXRlZnVsIFBDRS4gIFtJLUQuaWV0Zi1wY2Utc3RhdGVmdWwtcGNlXQ0KICAgcHJvdmlkZXMg dGhlIGZ1bmRhbWVudGFsIFBDRSBjb21tdW5pY2F0aW9uIFByb3RvY29sIChQQ0VQKSBleHRlbnNp b25zDQogICBuZWVkZWQgdG8gc3VwcG9ydCBzdGF0ZWZ1bCBQQ0UgZnVuY3Rpb25zLiAgVGhpcyBt ZW1vIHByb3ZpZGVzDQogICBleHRlbnNpb25zIHJlcXVpcmVkIGZvciBQQ0VQIHNvIGFzIHRvIGVu YWJsZSB0aGUgdXNhZ2Ugb2YgYSBzdGF0ZWZ1bA0KICAgUENFIGNhcGFiaWxpdHkgaW4gc3VwcG9y dGluZyBwb2ludC10by1tdWx0aXBvaW50IChQMk1QKSBURSBMU1BzLg0KDQogICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgDQoNCg0KUGxlYXNlIG5vdGUgdGhhdCBpdCBtYXkgdGFrZSBhIGNvdXBsZSBv ZiBtaW51dGVzIGZyb20gdGhlIHRpbWUgb2Ygc3VibWlzc2lvbiB1bnRpbCB0aGUgaHRtbGl6ZWQg dmVyc2lvbiBhbmQgZGlmZiBhcmUgYXZhaWxhYmxlIGF0IHRvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnLg0KDQpUaGUg SUVURiBTZWNyZXRhcmlhdA0KDQo= From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Jan 6 19:58:33 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 558D61AE416; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 19:58:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 60cWUC-RXTIf; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 19:58:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DF471AE40D; Mon, 6 Jan 2014 19:58:32 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.90.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140107035831.447.79132.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 19:58:31 -0800 Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-02.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 03:58:33 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element Working Group of= the IETF. Title : Extensions to the Path Computation Element Commun= ication Protocol (PCEP) to compute service aware Label Switched Path (LSP). Authors : Dhruv Dhody Vishwas Manral Zafar Ali George Swallow Kenji Kumaki Filename : draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-02.txt Pages : 18 Date : 2014-01-06 Abstract: In certain networks like financial information network (stock/ commodity trading) and enterprises using cloud based applications, Latency (delay), Latency-Variation (jitter) and Packet Loss is becoming a key requirement for path computation along with other constraints and metrics. Latency, Latency-Variation and Packet Loss is associated with the Service Level Agreement (SLA) between customers and service providers. [OSPF-TE-EXPRESS] and [ISIS-TE-EXPRESS] describes mechanisms with which network performance information is distributed via OSPF and ISIS respectively. The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests. This document describes the extension to PCEP to carry Latency, Latency-Variation and Packet Loss as constraints for end to end path computation. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-02 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-pce-pcep-service-aware-02 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. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From internet-drafts@ietf.org Tue Jan 7 03:49:27 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E82F31ADF8C; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 03:49:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3RREojuiOxV0; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 03:49:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 831CB1AD9B7; Tue, 7 Jan 2014 03:49:26 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.90.p1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140107114926.25192.26563.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 03:49:26 -0800 Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-04.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 11:49:28 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element Working Group of= the IETF. Title : Standard Representation Of Domain-Sequence Authors : Dhruv Dhody Udayasree Palle Ramon Casellas Filename : draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-04.txt Pages : 33 Date : 2014-01-07 Abstract: The ability to compute shortest constrained Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks across multiple domains has been identified as a key requirement. In this context, a domain is a collection of network elements within a common sphere of address management or path computational responsibility such as an Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) area or an Autonomous Systems (AS). This document specifies a standard representation and encoding of a Domain-Sequence, which is defined as an ordered sequence of domains traversed to reach the destination domain to be used by Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to compute inter-domain shortest constrained paths across a predetermined sequence of domains . This document also defines new subobjects to be used to encode domain identifiers. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-04 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-04 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. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Jan 9 08:12:56 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 615441ADF7F; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 08:12:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LCW1wPVC_gID; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 08:12:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A60B31ACCE0; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 08:12:54 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.90.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140109161254.5795.16652.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 08:12:54 -0800 Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib-06.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 16:12:56 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element Working Group of= the IETF. Title : PCE communication protocol (PCEP) Management Info= rmation Base Authors : A S Kiran Koushik Stephan Emile Quintin Zhao Daniel King Jonathan Hardwick Filename : draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib-06.txt Pages : 47 Date : 2014-01-09 Abstract: This memo defines an experimental portion of the Management Information Base for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it describes managed objects for modeling of Path Computation Element communication Protocol (PCEP) for communications between a Path Computation Client (PCC) and a Path Computation Element (PCE), or between two PCEs. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib-06 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib-06 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. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From avantika.sushilkumar@huawei.com Sun Jan 12 21:11:38 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D00121AD687 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 21:11:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.738 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.738 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5C5SDqeRdNtF for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 21:11:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DB0E1AD190 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 21:11:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AZW51623; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 05:11:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 05:09:48 +0000 Received: from SZXEML456-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.199) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 05:10:33 +0000 Received: from SZXEML506-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.75]) by szxeml456-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.199]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 13:10:24 +0800 From: Avantika To: "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: draft-avantika-pce-multi-src-dest-00 Thread-Index: Ac8QHcM9+/l06DavTtaKMfzoz32PPA== Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 05:10:23 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-IN, en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.18.152.79] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C3583E40DA11DD48BA34EEC5E9F03A21556498A6SZXEML506MBSchi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: [Pce] draft-avantika-pce-multi-src-dest-00 X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 05:11:39 -0000 --_000_C3583E40DA11DD48BA34EEC5E9F03A21556498A6SZXEML506MBSchi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi WG, I would like to bring to your notice this ID: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-avantika-pce-multi-src-dest-00 It supports multiple sources and destinations in a single path computation = request by defining a new END-POINTS type. Kindly provide your comments and suggestions. Regards, Avantika/Udaya --_000_C3583E40DA11DD48BA34EEC5E9F03A21556498A6SZXEML506MBSchi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi WG,

 

I would like to bring to your notice this ID:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-avantika-pce-multi= -src-dest-00

It supports multiple sources and destinations in a s= ingle path computation request by defining a new END-POINTS type.

 

Kindly provide your comments and suggestions.

 

Regards,

Avantika/Udaya

 

--_000_C3583E40DA11DD48BA34EEC5E9F03A21556498A6SZXEML506MBSchi_-- From zhang.xian@huawei.com Sun Jan 12 23:52:54 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84AC61ADFC0 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 23:52:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.739 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.739 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U6-_Zpe-GaSz for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 23:52:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55CB51AD9A9 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 23:52:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AZW63552; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 07:52:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 07:51:53 +0000 Received: from SZXEMA407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.39) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 07:52:39 +0000 Received: from SZXEMA512-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.167]) by SZXEMA407-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.39]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:52:35 +0800 From: "Zhangxian (Xian)" To: "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-sivabalan-pce-disco-stateful-03.txt Thread-Index: AQHPECT97WsE/EaLTU6xNGfc/gKtQZqCSBfQ Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 07:52:33 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.66.104.209] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: "Siva Sivabalan \(msiva\)" Subject: [Pce] FW: New Version Notification for draft-sivabalan-pce-disco-stateful-03.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 07:52:54 -0000 SGksIEFsbCwgDQoNCiAgIEp1c3QgdG8ga2VlcCB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0IGFsaXZlIHdpdGggYSB2ZXJz aW9uIHVwZGF0ZTsgbm8gdGVjaG5pY2FsIHVwZGF0ZS4gDQoNCiAgIElmIHlvdSBoYXZlIGFueSBj b21tZW50cywgcGxlYXNlIGxldCB1cyBrbm93LiANCg0KQ2hlZXJzLA0KWGlhbg0KDQotLS0tLU9y aWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KRnJvbTogaW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzQGlldGYub3JnIFttYWls dG86aW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzQGlldGYub3JnXSANClNlbnQ6IDIwMTTlubQx5pyIMTPml6UgMTM6 NTkNClRvOiBTaXZhIFNpdmFiYWxhbjsgSmFuIE1lZHZlZDsgU2l2YSBTaXZhYmFsYW47IEphbiBN ZWR2ZWQ7IFpoYW5neGlhbiAoWGlhbik7IFpoYW5neGlhbiAoWGlhbikNClN1YmplY3Q6IE5ldyBW ZXJzaW9uIE5vdGlmaWNhdGlvbiBmb3IgZHJhZnQtc2l2YWJhbGFuLXBjZS1kaXNjby1zdGF0ZWZ1 bC0wMy50eHQNCg0KDQpBIG5ldyB2ZXJzaW9uIG9mIEktRCwgZHJhZnQtc2l2YWJhbGFuLXBjZS1k aXNjby1zdGF0ZWZ1bC0wMy50eHQNCmhhcyBiZWVuIHN1Y2Nlc3NmdWxseSBzdWJtaXR0ZWQgYnkg WGlhbiBaaGFuZyBhbmQgcG9zdGVkIHRvIHRoZQ0KSUVURiByZXBvc2l0b3J5Lg0KDQpOYW1lOgkJ ZHJhZnQtc2l2YWJhbGFuLXBjZS1kaXNjby1zdGF0ZWZ1bA0KUmV2aXNpb246CTAzDQpUaXRsZToJ CUlHUCBFeHRlbnNpb25zIGZvciBTdGF0ZWZ1bCBQQ0UgRGlzY292ZXJ5DQpEb2N1bWVudCBkYXRl OgkyMDE0LTAxLTEzDQpHcm91cDoJCUluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3VibWlzc2lvbg0KUGFnZXM6CQk3DQpV Ukw6ICAgICAgICAgICAgaHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9pbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHMvZHJhZnQt c2l2YWJhbGFuLXBjZS1kaXNjby1zdGF0ZWZ1bC0wMy50eHQNClN0YXR1czogICAgICAgICBodHRw czovL2RhdGF0cmFja2VyLmlldGYub3JnL2RvYy9kcmFmdC1zaXZhYmFsYW4tcGNlLWRpc2NvLXN0 YXRlZnVsLw0KSHRtbGl6ZWQ6ICAgICAgIGh0dHA6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0 LXNpdmFiYWxhbi1wY2UtZGlzY28tc3RhdGVmdWwtMDMNCkRpZmY6ICAgICAgICAgICBodHRwOi8v d3d3LmlldGYub3JnL3JmY2RpZmY/dXJsMj1kcmFmdC1zaXZhYmFsYW4tcGNlLWRpc2NvLXN0YXRl ZnVsLTAzDQoNCkFic3RyYWN0Og0KICAgV2hlbiBhIFBDRSBpcyBhIExhYmVsIFN3aXRjaGluZyBS b3V0ZXIgKExTUikgcGFydGljaXBhdGluZyBpbiB0aGUNCiAgIEludGVyaW9yIEdhdGV3YXkgUHJv dG9jb2wgKElHUCksIG9yIGV2ZW4gYSBzZXJ2ZXIgcGFydGljaXBhdGluZyBpbg0KICAgSUdQLCBp dHMgcHJlc2VuY2UgYW5kIHBhdGggY29tcHV0YXRpb24gY2FwYWJpbGl0aWVzIGNhbiBiZSBhZHZl cnRpc2VkDQogICB1c2luZyBJR1AgZmxvb2RpbmcuICBTdWNoIElHUCBleHRlbnNpb25zIGV4aXN0 IGZvciBPU1BGIGFuZCBJU0lTLg0KICAgVGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCBzcGVjaWZpZXMgdHdvIG5ldyBQ Q0UgY2FwYWJpbGl0aWVzIGFkdmVydGlzZWQgYnkgSUdQLg0KDQogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgDQoNCg0KUGxlYXNlIG5vdGUgdGhhdCBpdCBtYXkgdGFrZSBhIGNvdXBsZSBvZiBtaW51 dGVzIGZyb20gdGhlIHRpbWUgb2Ygc3VibWlzc2lvbg0KdW50aWwgdGhlIGh0bWxpemVkIHZlcnNp b24gYW5kIGRpZmYgYXJlIGF2YWlsYWJsZSBhdCB0b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy4NCg0KVGhlIElFVEYg U2VjcmV0YXJpYXQNCg0K From y-iizawa@cd.jp.nec.com Tue Jan 14 00:29:25 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE1791AE1F5 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 00:29:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.693 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.693 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V1RJLbaKU6tl for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 00:29:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from tyo202.gate.nec.co.jp (TYO202.gate.nec.co.jp [202.32.8.206]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFFB81AE01D for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 00:29:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailgate3.nec.co.jp ([10.7.69.193]) by tyo202.gate.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id s0E8TBHh023465 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 17:29:11 +0900 (JST) Received: from mailsv3.nec.co.jp (imss61.nec.co.jp [10.7.69.156]) by mailgate3.nec.co.jp (8.11.7/3.7W-MAILGATE-NEC) with ESMTP id s0E8TBM16626 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 17:29:11 +0900 (JST) Received: from mail03.kamome.nec.co.jp (mail03.kamome.nec.co.jp [10.25.43.7]) by mailsv3.nec.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id s0E8StDs012181 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 17:29:11 +0900 (JST) Received: from bpxc99gp.gisp.nec.co.jp ([10.38.151.129] [10.38.151.129]) by mail01b.kamome.nec.co.jp with ESMTP id BT-MMP-352597; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 17:28:12 +0900 Received: from BPXM02GP.gisp.nec.co.jp ([169.254.1.234]) by BPXC01GP.gisp.nec.co.jp ([10.38.151.129]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.011; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 17:28:11 +0900 From: Yohei Iizawa To: "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: iPOP2014 CFP Thread-Index: Ac8RAmatDYiwF97WTHGzAYFAmM1kaQ== Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 08:28:10 +0000 Message-ID: <6D8CC8EB7FE4C444B73DF64E761A0DCC1D54703C@BPXM02GP.gisp.nec.co.jp> Accept-Language: ja-JP, en-US Content-Language: ja-JP X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.56.47.179] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Pce] iPOP2014 CFP X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 08:29:26 -0000 (Apologies if you received multiple copies of this message.) Dear PCE subscribers, iPOP2014 Call for Presentation is now open as follows. The deadline for submitting presentation proposal is February 7th, 2014. Best Regards, iPOP2014 TPC secretary Yohei Iizawa --------------------------------------------------------------------- Call for Presentation 10th International Conference on IP + Optical Network (iPOP 2014) May 22-23, 2014 NTT R&D center Musashino, Tokyo, Japan http://www.pilab.jp/ipop2014/ The conference is intended to share among the industry and the academia, the knowledge, new findings, and experience on the state-of-the art of IP and optical networking technologies. It features technical sessions and planned exhibitions. The opportunity to participate is open to all. Important Dates: Submission deadline of one-page abstract: February 7, 2014=20 Notification of acceptance: March 24, 2014 Submission deadline of final presentation slides: April 11, 2014 The Technical Program Committee for iPOP 2014 is soliciting presentation=20 proposals for this conference. Protocol design, experiment, theory,=20 implementation, and operational experiences are solicited. The topics of the conference will include but not be limited to the followi= ng: - Photonic network for NxGN and NwGN - Multi-Layer Network (MLN)/Multi-Region Network (MRN) - Inter-area/inter-AS network - Software Defined Networking (SDN) - Software Defined Optics (SDO) and its network application - SDN network services and monetization=20 - Open Source Software (OSS) activities for SDN - Network virtualization=20 - Data center and WAN orchestration - Path Computation Element (PCE) and traffic engineering - GMPLS/ASON technologies - Application with high-bandwidth demand - L0-L3 Virtual Private Network (VPN) - MPLS and Ethernet networking for inter-data center connectivity for cloud computing - Carrier Ethernet and MPLS-TP for backhauling - Optical networking/switching for cloud services - Testbed, field trial If you wish to submit a topic for consideration, please send an Extended=20 Abstracts of 400 words and a maximum of 1 page, including figures and=20 diagrams, speaker's name, affiliation, and contact information=20 to the Technical Program Committee at ipop2014-CFP@pilab.jp. Please see http://www.pilab.jp/ipop2014/ for more details. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---- From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Thu Jan 16 09:53:53 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 262FB1A1EF9; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 09:53:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8FD3ZqlGPGzq; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 09:53:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 823EF1A1F02; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 09:53:49 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.90.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140116175349.16792.34921.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 09:53:49 -0800 Cc: pce mailing list , pce chair , RFC Editor Subject: [Pce] Protocol Action: 'Conveying Vendor-Specific Constraints in the Path Computation Element communication Protocol' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints-11.txt) X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 17:53:53 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Conveying Vendor-Specific Constraints in the Path Computation Element communication Protocol' (draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints-11.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Path Computation Element Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Stewart Bryant and Adrian Farrel. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-vendor-constraints/ Technical Summary The Path Computation Element Protocol (PCEP) is used to convey path computation requests and responses between Path Computation Clients (PCCs) and Path Computation Elements (PCEs), and also between cooperating PCEs. In PCEP the path computation requests carry details of the constraints and objective functions that the PCC wishes the PCE to apply in its computation. This document defines a facility to carry vendor-specific information in PCEP using a dedicated object and a new Type-Length-Variable that can be carried in any existing PCEP object. Working Group Summary No strong controversy on the document, but the comment about the actual need of defining proprietary fields within a standard protocol came up several times. Document Quality Some implementations claim to use the extensions defined in the I-D. Personnel Julien Meuric is the Document Shepherd. Stewart Bryant is the Responsible Area Director. RFC Editor Note Section 1 New text at the end of the section NEW It should be noted that by the very definition of "vendor-specific", the inclusion of either a Vendor Information object or the VENDOR- INFORMATION-TLV implies an inability to interoperate at a functional level with implementations from other vendors unless there is some cooperation agreement between vendors. Sections 2.1 and 3.1 discuss backward compatibility which indicates how these protocol constructs are handled by implementations that either do not support them at all, while text in Sections 2 and 3 describes how implementations handle the constructs if they understand them, but do not support the embedded Enterprise Number that indicates to which vendor the constructs apply. When vendor-specific information is used by an implementation, the vendor is encouraged to document the meaning of the information to encourage wider use and implementation. In particular, when there is more general interest in a vendor-specific extension, the vendor is encouraged to bring it to the IETF for standardisation as a regular protocol construct moving it out of the vendor-specific space. END --- Section 9 OLD Thanks to Meral Shirazipour, Ramon Casellas, Cyril Margaria, Dhruv Dhody, and Julien Meuric for review and comments. NEW Thanks to Meral Shirazipour, Ramon Casellas, Cyril Margaria, Dhruv Dhody, Julien Meuric, and Robert Sparks for review and comments. END From adrian@olddog.co.uk Sun Jan 19 08:37:43 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 708331AE00F for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2014 08:37:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.147 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.147 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bY_DfFdHhe3P for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2014 08:37:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F3501AE00B for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2014 08:37:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s0JGbQVT005401; Sun, 19 Jan 2014 16:37:27 GMT Received: from 950129200 (14.21.90.92.rev.sfr.net [92.90.21.14]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s0JGbM96005360 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 19 Jan 2014 16:37:26 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 16:37:26 -0000 Message-ID: <07b801cf1534$bec46b60$3c4d4220$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac8VNFeRvCG6i4qyTfiGqoE+7Nwh2w== Content-Language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: No Cc: touch@ISI.EDU Subject: [Pce] Use of TCP AO and TLS in PCEP X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 16:37:43 -0000 Hi, With half an eye on Diego's draft I asked in the Transport Area for some advice and expertise from that community, and Joe Touch stepped forward. Bearing in mind that Joe may not be the PCE expert that some of you are, here are his comments on the use of TCP security in PCEP. Double quote is me, and then later Diego's draft. Single quote is Joe. Thanks to Joe for his time. Please be sure to copy him directly on any discussions so that he can see them without subscribing to the PCE list. Cheers, Adrian > > The PCE WG has http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lopez-pce-pceps/ which > > is about running PCEP (the PCE protocol, a TCP-using protocol) using TLS and > > TCP-AO. > > > > We could look at the work done in KARP (RFC 6952) but that is hardly conclusive. > > That work was driven largely by that WG's concern with the lack of > availability of a TCP-AO implementation in end-system OSes (Linux or > FreeBSD). They spent an inordinate amount of time complaining about > that, time that could easily have been used to implement the protocol > rather than worrying about alternate interim solutions. > > > The base PCEP spec (RFC 5440) pre-dated the > > publication of TCP AO, but did include a forward pointer. > > ------------------------------------------- > > Secure Transport for PCEP > draft-lopez-pce-pceps-00 > > > 2.1. TCP ports > > > > The default destination port number for PCEPS is TCP/XXXX. > > > > NOTE: This port has to be agreed and registered as PCEPS with IANA. > > PCEP already is assigned to port 4189. RFC5440 already permits PCEP > connections to use either TCP MD5 or TCP-AO, but at the time of that > document there was no TCP-AO to reference. > > As a result it should be trivial for a PCEP server to differentiate pcep > vs. pceps connections: > > MD5 must be pcep, and already don't use TLS > > TCP-AO must be pceps, and thus must include TLS > > connections using neither MD5 nor TCP-AO must be pceps, > and thus must include TLS > > I don't see a rationale for needing a separate port. > > > 2.2. TLS Connection Establishment > ... > > NOTE: We have to consider potential interactions between TLS re- > > negotiation and TCP-AO MKT > > I don't understand this statement. TLS has nothing to do with TCP-AO; > TCP-AO's protection does not modify the application (TLS) view of TCP at > all (even if keys change during a connection). > > There should be no interaction. > > > 2.3. TCP-AO Application > > > > PCEPS implementations MAY in addition apply the mechanisms described > > by the TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO, described in [RFC5925] to > > provide an additional level of protection with respect to attacks > > specifically addressed to forging the TCP connection underpinning > > TLS. TCP-AO is fully compatible with and deemed as complementary to > > TLS, so its usage is to be considered as a security enhancement > > whenever any of the PCEPS peers require it.' > > I don't understand the rational for the protection defined by PCEPS vs PCEP. > > PCEP = *requires* TCP protection (either TCP MD5 or IPsec), but allows > privacy to be optional (e.g., when using TCP MD5); regardless of the > forward pointer to TCP-AO, there was no specification to cite, thus it > cannot be required. > > PCEPS = *requires* privacy by TLS, but leaves TCP protection as optional. > > This makes no sense to me. IMO, TCP protection *must* be mandatory, or > RFC5440 needs to be updated before PCEPS should proceed. > > > Implementations including support for TCP-AO MUST provide mechanisms > > to configure the requirements to use TCP-AO, as well as the > > association of a TCP-AO Master Key Tuple (MKT) with a particular > > peer. > > The above is a strange way to say "implementations supporting TCP-AO > MUST support TCP-AO", which is a tautology that need not be stated. > > > Whether these mechanisms are provided by the administrative > > interface or rely on the TLS handshake according to procedures > > similar to those described in [RFC5216] and [RFC5705] is outside the > > scope of this document. > > TLS cannot be used to protect TCP-AO sessions. For a given connection, > TCP-AO must be started at connection establishment, which is prior to > TLS negotiation. > > ... > > > 4. Backward Compatibility > > > > Since the procedure described in this document describes a security > > container for the transport of PCEP requests and replies carried on a > > newly allocated TCP port there will be no impact on the base PCEP > > and/or any further extensions. > > See my comment above; I agree, but not because a new port is needed. > > > 5. IANA Considerations > > > > NOTE: PCEPS has to be registered as TCP port XXXX. > > > > No new PCEP messages or other objects are defined. > > As noted earlier, I disagree with this requirement. > > > 6. Security Considerations > > > > Since computational resources required by TLS handshake and > > ciphersuite are higher than unencrypted TCP, clients connecting to a > > PCEPS server can more easily create high load conditions and a > > malicious client might create a Denial-of-Service attack more easily. > > FWIW, the same is true for IPsec and TCP-AO (at best only IPsec might > have hardware support). > > --- > > Missing - the doc needs to specify which parameters to use for TCP-AO, > from among those listed in RFC5926. From daniel@olddog.co.uk Sun Jan 19 13:37:35 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C801C1ADFA8 for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:37:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zMLjnUcYepSq for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:37:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 690731ADFA5 for ; Sun, 19 Jan 2014 13:37:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s0JLbIp4018679; Sun, 19 Jan 2014 21:37:19 GMT Received: from Serenity (88-97-23-122.dsl.zen.co.uk [88.97.23.122]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s0JLbHMd018673 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 19 Jan 2014 21:37:18 GMT From: "Daniel King" To: "'Juergen Schoenwaelder'" References: <20140119182231.GB42438@elstar.local> In-Reply-To: <20140119182231.GB42438@elstar.local> Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 21:37:14 -0000 Message-ID: <006501cf155e$9e8a0bf0$db9e23d0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AQFObkfCKJ2AEzeFENJMjL9T3gM/wZuN3+bA Content-Language: en-gb Cc: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib.all@tools.ietf.org, pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] 'MIB Doctor' review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib-06 X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 21:37:35 -0000 Thank you for the review Juergen. We will discuss between the authors/vendors and address your comments/recommendations in a new version of the document, and email you directly if we need to clarify any points. Br, Dan. -----Original Message----- From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de] Sent: 19 January 2014 18:23 To: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib.all@tools.ietf.org; pce@ietf.org Cc: mib-doctors@ietf.org Subject: 'MIB Doctor' review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib-06 Hi, please find below my review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib-06. Overall, the document is in a pretty good shape. It is nice to review MIB modules that are well put together. The MIB module compiles fine with smiling 0.4.8 and produces no warnings. Below is a list of comments in document order of appearance. Some may require an action other maybe not. I have marked the ones that I find more important with (*). a) I guess you should spell out PCE In the title. b) The abstract says the I-D defines an "experimental portion" of the MIB while the document is marked as standards-track. This does not seem to be consistent. c) In section 2, ATD should STD. d) The LAST-UPDATED and REVISION clauses as well as the Copyright year in the DESCRIPTION clause of the MODULE-IDENTITY all date back to 2013 even though the I-D was last updated in 2014. You may want to move to a date in 2014. e) I suggest to replace pcePcepMIBObjects with pcePcepObjects. This aligns more with the recommendation given in appendix D of RFC 4181. f) I think the description of pcePcepEntityTable should use plural, that is, "... about PCEP Entities". Or will this table always have only a single row? g) If you want to describe the enums of an INTEGER, please do so in the DESCRIPTION clause and not in comments (since comments may not be preserved by tools processing MIB modules). h) pcePcepEntityAddr seems to serve two purposes, depending on whether the peer is a pce and a pcc. The pcePcepPeerRole object makes me believe an entity can also be both at the same time. If so, then how does one interpret pcePcepEntityAddr? (*) i) pcePcepEntityConnectMaxRetry has a UNITS clause saying it is in seconds. This might be a cut and paste error? j) pcePcepPeerAddr has a length restriction which essentially also restricts pcePcepPeerAddrType. pcePcepPeerAddrType kind of has a restriction inline but not explicit via subtyping. It might be more inline with the INET-ADDRESS-MIB to not restrict this. If you want to restrict things, you may want to do that in a compliance statement. (*) Despite future proofing considerations, the restrictions make it impossible to have PCE entities with non-global that is non-unique addresses (because you may not be able to disambiguate them). k) pcePcepPeerDiscontinuityTime refers to RFC 1907. I think the current version it should refer to is RFC 3418. In any case, if you think explicit text concerning sysUpTime is needed, I think this warrants a normative reference added to RFC 3418 and a statement in section 5.5. (I am not sure this is really needed since you kind of import knowledge about sysUpTime via the TimeStamp TC you are using. j) The *AvgRspTime, *LWMRspTime, *HWMRspTime objects have a resolution of seconds. This means that times < 500ms will be represented as 0 seconds and thus indistinguishable from no message at all. I do not know whether this is an issue or not. Is it possible to have sub-second response times? (*) k) pcePcepSessState typo: entiries -> entries l) pcePcepSessPeerDeadTimer typo: for for -> for -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Sun Jan 19 10:22:51 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7BA11ADF70; Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:22:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.788 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.788 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gmW-wcM-B5XY; Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:22:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 713A81ADF38; Sun, 19 Jan 2014 10:22:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (demetrius2.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.47]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0264520056; Sun, 19 Jan 2014 19:22:35 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius2.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JE1m7bvH9XB2; Sun, 19 Jan 2014 19:22:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95ACA2003F; Sun, 19 Jan 2014 19:22:34 +0100 (CET) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 77FDB2ABDB8C; Sun, 19 Jan 2014 19:22:31 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 19:22:31 +0100 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib.all@tools.ietf.org, pce@ietf.org Message-ID: <20140119182231.GB42438@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib.all@tools.ietf.org, pce@ietf.org, mib-doctors@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 01:43:44 -0800 Cc: mib-doctors@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] 'MIB Doctor' review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib-06 X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:22:52 -0000 Hi, please find below my review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib-06. Overall, the document is in a pretty good shape. It is nice to review MIB modules that are well put together. The MIB module compiles fine with smiling 0.4.8 and produces no warnings. Below is a list of comments in document order of appearance. Some may require an action other maybe not. I have marked the ones that I find more important with (*). a) I guess you should spell out PCE In the title. b) The abstract says the I-D defines an "experimental portion" of the MIB while the document is marked as standards-track. This does not seem to be consistent. c) In section 2, ATD should STD. d) The LAST-UPDATED and REVISION clauses as well as the Copyright year in the DESCRIPTION clause of the MODULE-IDENTITY all date back to 2013 even though the I-D was last updated in 2014. You may want to move to a date in 2014. e) I suggest to replace pcePcepMIBObjects with pcePcepObjects. This aligns more with the recommendation given in appendix D of RFC 4181. f) I think the description of pcePcepEntityTable should use plural, that is, "... about PCEP Entities". Or will this table always have only a single row? g) If you want to describe the enums of an INTEGER, please do so in the DESCRIPTION clause and not in comments (since comments may not be preserved by tools processing MIB modules). h) pcePcepEntityAddr seems to serve two purposes, depending on whether the peer is a pce and a pcc. The pcePcepPeerRole object makes me believe an entity can also be both at the same time. If so, then how does one interpret pcePcepEntityAddr? (*) i) pcePcepEntityConnectMaxRetry has a UNITS clause saying it is in seconds. This might be a cut and paste error? j) pcePcepPeerAddr has a length restriction which essentially also restricts pcePcepPeerAddrType. pcePcepPeerAddrType kind of has a restriction inline but not explicit via subtyping. It might be more inline with the INET-ADDRESS-MIB to not restrict this. If you want to restrict things, you may want to do that in a compliance statement. (*) Despite future proofing considerations, the restrictions make it impossible to have PCE entities with non-global that is non-unique addresses (because you may not be able to disambiguate them). k) pcePcepPeerDiscontinuityTime refers to RFC 1907. I think the current version it should refer to is RFC 3418. In any case, if you think explicit text concerning sysUpTime is needed, I think this warrants a normative reference added to RFC 3418 and a statement in section 5.5. (I am not sure this is really needed since you kind of import knowledge about sysUpTime via the TimeStamp TC you are using. j) The *AvgRspTime, *LWMRspTime, *HWMRspTime objects have a resolution of seconds. This means that times < 500ms will be represented as 0 seconds and thus indistinguishable from no message at all. I do not know whether this is an issue or not. Is it possible to have sub-second response times? (*) k) pcePcepSessState typo: entiries -> entries l) pcePcepSessPeerDeadTimer typo: for for -> for -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From dhruv.ietf@gmail.com Tue Jan 21 05:00:38 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46C391A00DC for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 05:00:38 -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=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mowoMv0u4I3m for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 05:00:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-x234.google.com (mail-ie0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E03D41A00C9 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 05:00:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ie0-f180.google.com with SMTP id at1so6515618iec.25 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 05:00:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=+UxlBjSDzvTz637TS53RPnD7PE/tOwAuSNpWhCHzhUg=; b=SK3hqQemEcSM1aDHkum3MM8SP/iT/6Uqm80HE1Yc2ybBZ+FX+ouPAMhCFnFIwMn+8r fZUkvZCrDttGUIlY5iifrR+7cu93XPX+1+HhOyG0iby1ALjpwoPW0xOPtAySiFvL/JWo lkYjd1ZLjBAysSnTiY8Mfgf6G0DFD94CLFw92BGbmQQhROGxYCkwA9fL7aLe6GOFJTCL nM3GQBRvN7d8U5pTxhAiocJbaKx+cZJvIGsBXtlWvNMkw9Z7sIAhEvZb6aZE978fkauy xmOAvICslUsq4TB+w/royrfPHIGjUpUpcIbj2QqJu4tlXRubJgt3qereIQVrURnLOAeC hFEw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.118.41 with SMTP id kj9mr17445992igb.37.1390309231789; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 05:00:31 -0800 (PST) Sender: dhruvdhody@gmail.com X-Google-Sender-Delegation: dhruvdhody@gmail.com Received: by 10.50.160.231 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 05:00:31 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20140121125507.1012.1918.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20140121125507.1012.1918.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 18:30:31 +0530 X-Google-Sender-Auth: BRhg-n3vgYK8rRs73km0yP3hY4A Message-ID: From: Dhruv Dhody To: "pce@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e011769a3e38b4804f07a9744 Subject: [Pce] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-03.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 13:00:38 -0000 --089e011769a3e38b4804f07a9744 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, We have updated the draft, clarifying the Motivation (section 3). http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-03 As usual any comments/suggestions are welcome. Dhruv ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Date: Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 6:25 PM Subject: New Version Notification for draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-03.txt To: Udayasree Palle , Dhruv Dhody < dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> A new version of I-D, draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-03.txt has been successfully submitted by Dhruv Dhody and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth Revision: 03 Title: PCEP Extensions for MPLS-TE LSP Automatic Bandwidth Adjustment with stateful PCE Document date: 2014-01-21 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 11 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-03.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth/ Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-03 Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-03 Abstract: The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests. The extensions described in [STATEFUL-PCE] provide stateful control of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSP) via PCEP, for a model where the PCC delegates control over one or more locally configured LSPs to the PCE. This document describes the automatic bandwidth adjustment of such LSPs under the Active Stateful PCE model. 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 --089e011769a3e38b4804f07a9744 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi,=A0

We have updated the draft, clari= fying the Motivation (section 3).=A0

As usual any comments/suggestions are welcome.
=

Dhruv

---------- Forwarded message ----------=
From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 6:25 PM
Subject: New Version Notification for= draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-03.txt
To: Udayasree Palle = <udayasree.palle@huawei.co= m>, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ie= tf@gmail.com>



A new version of I-D, draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-03.txt has been successfully submitted by Dhruv Dhody and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth
Revision: =A0 =A0 =A0 03
Title: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0PCEP Extensions for MPLS-TE LSP Automatic Bandwid= th Adjustment with stateful PCE
Document date: =A02014-01-21
Group: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Individual Submission
Pages: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A011
URL: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http:= //www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-= 03.txt
Status: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 https://datatracke= r.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth/
Htmlized: =A0 =A0 =A0 http://tools.ietf.org/ht= ml/draft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-03
Diff: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 http://www.i= etf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-dhody-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-03
Abstract:
=A0 =A0The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides<= br> =A0 =A0mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path
=A0 =A0computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests= .
=A0 =A0The extensions described in [STATEFUL-PCE] provide stateful control<= br> =A0 =A0of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Label =A0 =A0Switched Paths (TE LSP) via PCEP, for a model where the PCC delegate= s
=A0 =A0control over one or more locally configured LSPs to the PCE.

=A0 =A0This document describes the automatic bandwidth adjustment of such =A0 =A0LSPs under the Active Stateful PCE model.




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

The IETF Secretariat


--089e011769a3e38b4804f07a9744-- From dhruv.ietf@gmail.com Wed Jan 22 05:20:44 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CE2F1A00F7 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 05:20:44 -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=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id efN7i_-iiZtl for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 05:20:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ig0-x22c.google.com (mail-ig0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D01D61A00DA for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 05:20:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ig0-f172.google.com with SMTP id k19so13864867igc.5 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 05:20:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=AN9PJ7GQDusKbeJhZoKV6iTTv/sSBlP5Y+zWmnNAB+o=; b=TEFYWWTu7SF7Xb7TXap4eJb5XoQZsDNk6g598PfLVEVy0fYoj95SGF4UBqZY6wTE1s qnArsnh4tIuZqpOj6LX6PpGCHc13CeZFdSowZGyBBW1Rdflcd7AKXGAabi7K1YE71nMz bJ6R4Yl5j7wNfgvPQVGeMOtiqgShkrWWx3jJMgW/W5dOI6ibJayDSJcinOBGrOdZoXvy 8O5HRevSv44V0IWyPuBhiYN6wQNaIDVB5PvdZ43nwc7xhEDfxaq9DoXMBP6PyS2fyu2j dhcSK5WfaarQ+NboYf3ezINQkdoZuXxA5Wq9nEq1NI/NmCB/OmNncW9Nvw9/usXA3WJ0 aGww== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.42.20.3 with SMTP id e3mr1139039icb.2.1390396840231; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 05:20:40 -0800 (PST) Sender: dhruvdhody@gmail.com X-Google-Sender-Delegation: dhruvdhody@gmail.com Received: by 10.50.160.231 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 05:20:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20140122092421.17395.56022.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20140122092421.17395.56022.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 18:50:40 +0530 X-Google-Sender-Auth: nWXiv1cQXiH8i65KN0lFzanGfGo Message-ID: From: Dhruv Dhody To: "pce@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf302447bdc249cd04f08efdf5 Subject: [Pce] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-lspdb-sync-02.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 13:20:44 -0000 --20cf302447bdc249cd04f08efdf5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi All, Here is update to the 'LSP-DB sync between stateful PCEs' I.D. with clarification in the motivation & reference to the LSP-DB sync optimization I.D. (draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations). Comments / questions are welcome! Regards, Dhruv (on behalf of co-authors) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Date: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 2:54 PM Subject: New Version Notification for draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-lspdb-sync-02.txt To: Udayasree Palle , Dhruv Dhody < dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>, Xian Zhang A new version of I-D, draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-lspdb-sync-02.txt has been successfully submitted by Dhruv Dhody and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-lspdb-sync Revision: 02 Title: LSP-DB Synchronization between Stateful PCEs Document date: 2014-01-22 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 13 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-lspdb-sync-02.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-lspdb-sync/ Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-lspdb-sync-02 Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-lspdb-sync-02 Abstract: The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests. [STATEFUL-PCE] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to enable stateful control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) via PCEP and maintaining of these LSPs at the stateful PCE. This document describes the mechanisms of LSP Database (LSP-DB) synchronization between stateful PCEs. 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 --20cf302447bdc249cd04f08efdf5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi All,

Here is update to= the 'LSP-DB sync between stateful PCEs' I.D. with clarification in= the motivation & reference to the LSP-DB sync optimization I.D. (draft-minei-pce-stateful-sync-optimizations).=A0=

Comments / questions are welcome!=A0

Regards,
Dhruv (on behalf of co-authors)=


---------- Forwarded me= ssage ----------
From: <internet-drafts@ietf.or= g>
Date: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 2:54 PM
Subject: New Version Notification for= draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-lspdb-sync-02.txt
To: Udayasree Palle <= udayasree.palle@huawei.com>, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@g= mail.com>, Xian Zhang <z= hang.xian@huawei.com>



A new version of I-D, draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-lspdb-sync-02.txt
has been successfully submitted by Dhruv Dhody and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-lspdb-sync
Revision: =A0 =A0 =A0 02
Title: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0LSP-DB Synchronization between Stateful PCEs
Document date: =A02014-01-22
Group: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Individual Submission
Pages: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A013
URL: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://ww= w.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-lspdb-sync-02.txt
Status: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 https://datatracker.ie= tf.org/doc/draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-lspdb-sync/
Htmlized: =A0 =A0 =A0 http://tools.ietf.org/html/d= raft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-lspdb-sync-02
Diff: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 http://www.ietf.= org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-lspdb-sync-02

Abstract:
=A0 =A0The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides<= br> =A0 =A0mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path
=A0 =A0computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests= .

=A0 =A0[STATEFUL-PCE] specifies a set of extensions to PCEP to enable
=A0 =A0stateful control of MPLS-TE and GMPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs) vi= a
=A0 =A0PCEP and maintaining of these LSPs at the stateful PCE. =A0This
=A0 =A0document describes the mechanisms of LSP Database (LSP-DB)
=A0 =A0synchronization between stateful PCEs.




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

The IETF Secretariat


--20cf302447bdc249cd04f08efdf5-- From bill.wu@huawei.com Thu Jan 23 01:26:40 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C0F01A0347 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 01:26:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.736 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.736 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YTFsVSQbuccQ for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 01:26:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E4F71A0248 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 01:26:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BAI51431; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 09:26:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 09:26:30 +0000 Received: from NKGEML408-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.39) by lhreml403-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.217) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 09:26:34 +0000 Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.56]) by nkgeml408-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.39]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 17:26:31 +0800 From: Qin Wu To: "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: I-D Action: draft-wu-pce-pcep-link-bw-utilization-01.txt Thread-Index: AQHPDGgB3xH933RvAkK2HFiOR+DueZqSHtdQ Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 09:26:30 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.138.41.149] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: [Pce] FW: I-D Action: draft-wu-pce-pcep-link-bw-utilization-01.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 09:26:40 -0000 Hi,all: We have submitted an update of draft-wu-pce-pcep-link-bw-utilization-01. The diff is: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-wu-pce-pcep-link-bw-utilization-01 The main changes are 1. Change the format of BU object by removing object type and adding type f= ield in the payload of BU object. 2. Add PCEP message extension for stateful PCE. 3. Discuss BU object is applied to Inter-domain case and stateful PCE case. More your comments are welcome! Regards! -Qin -----Original Message----- From: I-D-Announce [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of inte= rnet-drafts@ietf.org Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 7:52 PM To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action: draft-wu-pce-pcep-link-bw-utilization-01.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. Title : Extensions to Path Computation Element Communicat= ion Protocol (PCEP) for handling Link Bandwidth Utilization Authors : Qin Wu Dhruv Dhody Stefano Previdi Filename : draft-wu-pce-pcep-link-bw-utilization-01.txt Pages : 15 Date : 2014-01-08 Abstract: The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests. Link bandwidth utilization considering the total bandwidth of a link in current use for the forwarding is an important factor to consider during path computation. This document describes extensions to PCEP to consider them as new constraints during path computation. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wu-pce-pcep-link-bw-utilization/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wu-pce-pcep-link-bw-utilization-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-wu-pce-pcep-link-bw-utilization-01 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submissio= n until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing list I-D-Announce@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 From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Jan 23 19:18:53 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E2A81A0141; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:18:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mo97pOObBZCo; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:18:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2233A1A012A; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:18:51 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.90.p2 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140124031850.24832.21256.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:18:50 -0800 Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-08.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 03:18:53 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element Working Group of= the IETF. Title : Extensions to the Path Computation Element commun= ication Protocol (PCEP) for Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering Authors : Eiji Oki Tomonori Takeda Adrian Farrel Fatai Zhang Filename : draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-08.txt Pages : 19 Date : 2014-01-23 Abstract: The Path Computation Element (PCE) provides path computation functions in support of traffic engineering in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks. MPLS and GMPLS networks may be constructed from layered service networks. It is advantageous for overall network efficiency to provide end-to-end traffic engineering across multiple network layers through a process called inter-layer traffic engineering. PCE is a candidate solution for such requirements. The PCE communication Protocol (PCEP) is designed as a communication protocol between Path Computation Clients (PCCs) and PCEs. This document presents PCEP extensions for inter-layer traffic engineering. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-08 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-08 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. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From zhangfatai@huawei.com Thu Jan 23 19:24:51 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C2F11A0051 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:24:51 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.736 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.736 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sm7ve16UfVR3 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:24:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C8A01A0014 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:24:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BCW24244; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 03:24:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 03:24:29 +0000 Received: from SZXEMA403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.35) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 03:24:46 +0000 Received: from SZXEMA504-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.231]) by SZXEMA403-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.35]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 11:24:42 +0800 From: Fatai Zhang To: "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-08.txt Thread-Index: AQHPGLMYCUeENS/ePkOcf4Izcj55kZqTNNRw Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 03:24:41 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20140124031850.24832.21256.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20140124031850.24832.21256.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.66.72.159] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-08.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 03:24:51 -0000 Hi PCEers, A new version without any tech changes has been submitted only for making t= his draft alive.=20 We as the authors have not received any comments for quite long time, so we= would like to request comments and suggestions from the WG sincerely.=20 If there are any comments, we would update the draft quickly based on the c= onsensus of the WG discussion. Best Regards Fatai -----Original Message----- From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.o= rg Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 11:19 AM To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-08.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element Working Group of= the IETF. Title : Extensions to the Path Computation Element commun= ication Protocol (PCEP) for Inter-Layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering Authors : Eiji Oki Tomonori Takeda Adrian Farrel Fatai Zhang Filename : draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-08.txt Pages : 19 Date : 2014-01-23 Abstract: The Path Computation Element (PCE) provides path computation functions in support of traffic engineering in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks. MPLS and GMPLS networks may be constructed from layered service networks. It is advantageous for overall network efficiency to provide end-to-end traffic engineering across multiple network layers through a process called inter-layer traffic engineering. PCE is a candidate solution for such requirements. The PCE communication Protocol (PCEP) is designed as a communication protocol between Path Computation Clients (PCCs) and PCEs. This document presents PCEP extensions for inter-layer traffic engineering. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-08 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext-08 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submissio= n until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. 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 From dhruv.ietf@gmail.com Fri Jan 24 04:59:20 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D8E91A0347 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 04:59:20 -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=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m5tNQNSv5rXU for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 04:59:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ig0-x233.google.com (mail-ig0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAC1F1A027A for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 04:59:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ig0-f179.google.com with SMTP id c10so2482236igq.0 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 04:59:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=YIJ8GRLHE8e7RPSh1dQkDgtbk6T70xm+qq/FLOe76bU=; b=ff2ygG9m31Jq4j0MekLg818O+pQ/ob1Egvjhp8yd8JFR6yFK0RJAl66huFhXM7buMv d+vycftbslAikpKqSovPakNiOuvku9ZQZy0tHjcjM/vLJH/9K5z5GOKrcsMTfDflmDcN D/EcEHzghiJfOpudFGC8LCtl97JTbGkBNg9EbNt2Qfh18pqDpVErt9mKM3SYHPMi2jWr CGmFzYfCucG0F57PN/S1dWyDxYmk0En98qjpLw0GRbOpUuu4dONCaCrug8KZ7PS6zuy+ A0PwnunTLhlUbivw2NsyEfqk4JJ5YliRJPigXY0/DXocArXrL6fN9CNE3GGOtyXGcyn/ 2I/Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.43.45.138 with SMTP id uk10mr377742icb.75.1390568357760; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 04:59:17 -0800 (PST) Sender: dhruvdhody@gmail.com X-Google-Sender-Delegation: dhruvdhody@gmail.com Received: by 10.50.160.231 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 04:59:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 18:29:17 +0530 X-Google-Sender-Auth: QilvpRiSGJ1_19Ei5cWuAp5Ot7I Message-ID: From: Dhruv Dhody To: "pce@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec52999550015cd04f0b6edc8 Subject: [Pce] Fwd: Suggestion in draft-wu-pce-pcep-link-bw-utilization regarding MRUP calculation X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 12:59:20 -0000 --bcaec52999550015cd04f0b6edc8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi PCErs, Authors have received a following suggestion to change the description for the new objective function Maximum Reserved Under-Utilized Path (MRUP) [ http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wu-pce-pcep-link-bw-utilization-01#section= -6.2 ]. We agree that the use of Maximum reservable bandwidth R(L) would be the correct way. We plan to make this change in the next revision. Name: Maximum Reserved Under-Utilized Path (MRUP) Description: Find a path P such that (Min {(R(Lpi)- ru(Lpi)) / R(Lpi), i=3D1...K } ) is maximized. Regards, Dhruv ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Avantika Date: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:11 PM Subject: Suggestion in draft-wu-pce-pcep-link-bw-utilization regarding MRUP calculation To: Dhruv Dhody , Qin Wu , " sprevidi@cisco.com" Cc: Udayasree palle , "dhruv.ietf@gmail.com" < dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> Hi Authors! I have a suggestion regarding the formula used for optimization using objective function MRUP in draft-wu-pce-pcep-link-bw-utilization. As per the draft, Name: Maximum Reserved Under-Utilized Path (MRUP) Description: Find a path P such that (Min {(c(Lpi)- ru(Lpi)) / c(Lpi), i=3D1...K } ) is maximized. Let me take the example of below topology, 100(max reservable BW on each link) Source Destination A------------------------C | | | | | | | | B------------------------D LSP1 : BW 20 LSP2 : BW 20 LSP3 : BW 40 Every time a LSP is established path A-C, the RSVP-traffic flowing through them, let=92s say, is approximately 60% of the current reserved. After each LSP is established, the output of the formula ((c(Lpi)- ru(Lpi)) / c(Lpi)) Consider link A-C LSP1: (20 =96 12)/20 LSP2: (40 =96 24)/40 LSP3: (80 =96 48)/80 Always remains as 0.4. In my opinion, if instead of using Current Reserved bandwidth, c(L) in the above formula, if we use Maximum reservable bandwidth on link L, denoted R(L). Name: Maximum Reserved Under-Utilized Path (MRUP) Description: Find a path P such that (Min {(R(Lpi)- ru(Lpi)) / R(Lpi), i=3D1...K } ) is maximized. Consider link A-C LSP1 : (100 =96 12)/100 =3D 0.88 LSP2 : (100 =96 24)/100 =3D 0.76 LSP3 : (100 =96 48)/100 =3D 0.52 This gives a much clearer reserved utilization for the link. Also, now if the OF MRUP is used for the path computation: LSP1 : A-C LSP2 : A-B-D-C LSP3 : A-C Hence we get a more diversified path using MRUP OF. Please let me know your opinion regarding the same. Regards, Avantika --bcaec52999550015cd04f0b6edc8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi PCErs,

Authors have received a following suggestion to change = the description for the new objective function=A0
Maximum= Reserved Under-Utilized Path (MRUP) [http://tools.= ietf.org/html/draft-wu-pce-pcep-link-bw-utilization-01#section-6.2].

We agree that the = use of=A0Maximum reservable bandwidth R(L)= would be the correct way. We plan = to make this change in the next revision.=A0

Name: Maximum Reserved Under-Utilized Path (MRUP)

=A0

Descriptio= n: Find a path P such that (Min {(R(Lpi)- ru(Lpi)) /

R(Lpi), i= =3D1...K } ) is maximized.


Regards,
Dhruv

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Avantika <avantika.sushilkumar@huawei.com><= br> Date: Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:11 PM
Subject: Suggestion in draft-wu-pce-= pcep-link-bw-utilization regarding MRUP calculation
To: Dhruv Dhody <= dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>, Q= in Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>,= "sprevidi@cisco.com" &= lt;sprevidi@cisco.com>
Cc: Udayasree palle <udaya= sree.palle@huawei.com>, "dhruv.ietf@gmail.com" <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>


Hi Authors!

=A0

I have a suggestion regarding the formula used for optimizatio= n using objective function MRUP in draft-wu-pce-pcep-link-bw-utilization.

=A0

As per the draft,

=A0

Name: Maximum Reserved Under-Utiliz= ed Path (MRUP)

=A0

Description: Find a path P such tha= t (Min {(c(Lpi)- ru(Lpi)) /

c(Lpi), i=3D1...K } ) is maximized.=

=A0

=A0

Let me take the example of below topology,

=A0

=A0 100(max reservable BW on each link)

=A0

Source=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 D= estination=A0

A------------------------C

|=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0|

|=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0|

|=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0|

|=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0|

B------------------------D

=A0

LSP1 : BW 20

LSP2 : BW 20

LSP3 : BW 40

=A0

Every time a LSP is established path A-C, the RSVP-traffic flo= wing through them, let=92s say, is approximately 60% of the current reserve= d.

=A0

After each LSP is established, the output of the formula ((c(L= pi)- ru(Lpi)) / c(Lpi))

Consider link A-C

LSP1: (20 =96 12)/20

LSP2: (40 =96 24)/40

LSP3: (80 =96 48)/80

=A0

Always remains as 0.4.

=A0

In my opinion, if instead of using Current Reserved bandwi=
dth, c(L) in the above formula, if we use Maximum reservable bandwidth on l=
ink L, denoted R(L). 
=A0

Name: Maximum Reserved Under-Utiliz= ed Path (MRUP)

=A0

Description: Find a path P such tha= t (Min {(R(Lpi)- ru(Lpi)) /

R(Lpi), i=3D1...K } ) is maximized.= 

=A0

=A0

Consider link A-C

LSP1 : (100 =96 12)/100 =3D 0.88

LSP2 : (100 =96 24)/100 =3D 0.76

LSP3 : (100 =96 48)/100 =3D 0.52

=A0


This gives a much clearer reserved utilization for the lin=
k. 


=A0


Also, now if the OF MRUP is used for the path computation:



=A0


LSP1 : A-C


LSP2 : A-B-D-C


LSP3 : A-C


=A0


Hence we get a more diversified path using MRUP OF.<=
/u>


=A0


Please let me know your opinion regarding the same.<=
/u>


=A0


Regards,


Avantika


=A0


=A0


=A0

--bcaec52999550015cd04f0b6edc8-- From dhruv.ietf@gmail.com Sat Jan 25 00:28:56 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDF111A0275 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 00:28:56 -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=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KAPSQt2O8qJj for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 00:28:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-x22f.google.com (mail-ie0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A53141A026E for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 00:28:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ie0-f175.google.com with SMTP id ar20so3909316iec.34 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 00:28:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=9zLLXbXMJ4/M4qEGUSHhevkwTHHBqNINf4iD3vdFmY4=; b=CudIUgPb3C7b46v/OM/pc1Y1+nZdY8EBsn5Pn/hktH6rhidHoFeInHdXglA3Foyg4O ZX2DJpwoAEvTr8X03BLrIBU+rEXsWY2UTcJYtROSlojcWk2UEpkFbCeoXdsr3cBRiSFZ DrllYSYcvL1FRnCsb4Sa1bGcyE2P34BjydqSASSR2G2oYJ7igjO08Z1AfCDH25RdHyIF v1rvCZBnisrvsiURag9Efyrzrd+nA1F/obMV1RJG44El5ntPVMd7FkEqk5QOWAtGgnLn Sr+R41URAtGramyT93Dp942Yp8KXc4C9GZFAlkKNFp2CfYlrU1wHmuVMld+0MMNbQ4Ja HqVA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.192.167 with SMTP id hh7mr8358966igc.3.1390638532150; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 00:28:52 -0800 (PST) Sender: dhruvdhody@gmail.com X-Google-Sender-Delegation: dhruvdhody@gmail.com Received: by 10.50.160.231 with HTTP; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 00:28:52 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20140125082232.21515.82030.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20140125082232.21515.82030.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 13:58:52 +0530 X-Google-Sender-Auth: _L_qJhj62vfl3gPeLTM1nm561Tk Message-ID: From: Dhruv Dhody To: "pce@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae934088bb84bb304f0c7432c Subject: [Pce] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-01.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 08:28:56 -0000 --14dae934088bb84bb304f0c7432c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi WG, With this update we have corrected the format of PCRpt and PCUpd messages by changing the placement of . [ http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-01 ] Further comments are welcome! Regards, Dhruv ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Date: Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 1:52 PM Subject: New Version Notification for draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-01.txt To: Udayasree Palle , Dhruv Dhody < dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> A new version of I-D, draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-01.txt has been successfully submitted by Dhruv Dhody and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp Revision: 01 Title: Path Computation Element (PCE) Protocol Extensions for Stateful PCE usage for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths Document date: 2014-01-25 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 16 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-01.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp/ Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-01 Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-01 Abstract: The Path Computation Element (PCE) has been identified as an appropriate technology for the determination of the paths of point- to-multipoint (P2MP) TE LSPs. [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app] presents several use cases, demonstrating scenarios that benefit from the deployment of a stateful PCE. [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] provides the fundamental PCE communication Protocol (PCEP) extensions needed to support stateful PCE functions. This memo provides extensions required for PCEP so as to enable the usage of a stateful PCE capability in supporting point-to-multipoint (P2MP) TE LSPs. 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 --14dae934088bb84bb304f0c7432c Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi WG,

With= this update we have corrected the format of PCRpt and PCUpd messages by ch= anging the placement of <= ;attribute-list>.
[
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-palle-pce-stateful= -pce-p2mp-01
]

Further comm= ents are welcome!

Regards,
Dhruv

---------- = Forwarded message ----------
From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
= Date: Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 1:52 PM
Subject: New Version Notification for= draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-01.txt
To: Udayasree Palle <udaya= sree.palle@huawei.com>, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>



A new version of I-D, draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-01.txt
has been successfully submitted by Dhruv Dhody and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp
Revision: =A0 =A0 =A0 01
Title: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Path Computation Element (PCE) Protocol Extension= s for Stateful PCE usage for Point-to-Multipoint Traffic Engineering Label = Switched Paths
Document date: =A02014-01-25
Group: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Individual Submission
Pages: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A016
URL: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.ietf= .org/internet-drafts/draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-01.txt
Status: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 https://datatracker.ietf.org= /doc/draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp/
Htmlized: =A0 =A0 =A0 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-p= alle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-01
Diff: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 http://www.ietf.org/rf= cdiff?url2=3Ddraft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-01

Abstract:
=A0 =A0The Path Computation Element (PCE) has been identified as an
=A0 =A0appropriate technology for the determination of the paths of point-<= br> =A0 =A0to-multipoint (P2MP) TE LSPs. =A0[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce-app]
=A0 =A0presents several use cases, demonstrating scenarios that benefit fro= m
=A0 =A0the deployment of a stateful PCE. =A0[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce]
=A0 =A0provides the fundamental PCE communication Protocol (PCEP) extension= s
=A0 =A0needed to support stateful PCE functions. =A0This memo provides
=A0 =A0extensions required for PCEP so as to enable the usage of a stateful=
=A0 =A0PCE capability in supporting point-to-multipoint (P2MP) TE LSPs.




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

The IETF Secretariat


--14dae934088bb84bb304f0c7432c-- From bill.wu@huawei.com Sat Jan 25 18:51:17 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFEEB1A00DC for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:51:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.736 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.736 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ddgWe3cns897 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:51:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C033B1A00D6 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 18:51:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BCX67632; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 02:51:13 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 02:50:48 +0000 Received: from NKGEML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.35) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 02:51:11 +0000 Received: from NKGEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.56]) by nkgeml404-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.35]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 10:51:06 +0800 From: Qin Wu To: "pce@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: I-D Action: draft-wu-pce-dns-pce-discovery-04.txt Thread-Index: AQHPGj9DL7+heachiE+RjzZZhi7VjJqWShnw Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 02:51:05 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.138.41.149] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: [Pce] FW: I-D Action: draft-wu-pce-dns-pce-discovery-04.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 02:51:18 -0000 Hi, all: Here is the update to draft-wu-pce-dns-pce-discovery-04 based on review fro= m DNS folks (Thanks for Yiyang for volunteer review)and=20 Comments received in the last IETF meeting. The main changes are a.Use "pce+acronym" instead of "pce+apX" in the NAPTR service field format b.Take out TLS/TCP from Application Protocol Tags for now since TLS/TCP tra= nsport still needs more discussion. c. Remove txt record for PCE scope since capability query has already suppo= rted PCE scope discovery. Let us know if you think any other remaining issue that hasn't been address= ed. Regards! -Qin -----Original Message----- From: I-D-Announce [mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of inte= rnet-drafts@ietf.org Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2014 10:35 AM To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action: draft-wu-pce-dns-pce-discovery-04.txt A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. Title : Path Computation Element (PCE) Discovery using Do= main Name System(DNS) Authors : Qin Wu Dhruv Dhody Daniel King Diego R. Lopez Filename : draft-wu-pce-dns-pce-discovery-04.txt Pages : 23 Date : 2014-01-25 Abstract: Discovery of the Path Computation Element (PCE) within an IGP area or routing domain is possible using OSPF [RFC5088] and IS-IS [RFC5089]. However, it has been established that in certain deployment scenarios PCEs may not wish, or be able to participate within the IGP process. In those scenarios, it is beneficial for the Path Computation Client (PCC) (or other PCE) to discover PCEs via an alternative mechanism to those proposed in [RFC5088] and [RFC5089]. This document specifies the requirements, use cases, procedures and extensions to support PCE type and capability discovery via DNS. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wu-pce-dns-pce-discovery/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wu-pce-dns-pce-discovery-04 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-wu-pce-dns-pce-discovery-04 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submissio= n until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing list I-D-Announce@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 From dhruv.ietf@gmail.com Sat Jan 25 21:26:12 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3410B1A0100 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 21:26:12 -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=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aMSPg5QJ48Fj for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 21:26:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ig0-x235.google.com (mail-ig0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F87A1A00F5 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 21:26:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ig0-f181.google.com with SMTP id j1so6191439iga.2 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 21:26:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=kq3bWD54z2j20miEDt6e8Tieg2xB+HcKSzjZd/KHPNg=; b=H1sRqZ1v25wI7Ji8OlDTplgYIPgRutWtPjFvCqg95CbFgP9gOQSiGnKkx8OeEyTyiP D5UxTnzcWIPXOTLzLj9Rv/ycYko1vWVQ26OJoU9CkDQ0sVYdYjOP0aKEWrGT+X0FhNiY aSI650q+CfPKwj601rCNW6Szb69n9epYCr40cf8vS5l03Foli+TwfRVN30pSnqc7Vn4q QijEgH1VEfvP1lauEAM4eikJAxvPvJ1xYEGQfLTMUUePTqRxlFqsdivUkfjPI30jRQis iZxvYTzaMNp8thFiSbF9R2Zxe1jCJu8IOwvpOeEXXxz7ADS1mHjiw/XmItGMpo+jyXg2 OPRQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.176.137 with SMTP id ci9mr11972377igc.31.1390713967464; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 21:26:07 -0800 (PST) Sender: dhruvdhody@gmail.com X-Google-Sender-Delegation: dhruvdhody@gmail.com Received: by 10.50.160.231 with HTTP; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 21:26:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20140126052118.2654.55776.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20140126052118.2654.55776.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 10:56:07 +0530 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 2kTOV-j2vTcEKI8rBFJvcCvAV_0 Message-ID: From: Dhruv Dhody To: "pce@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0111e0da03d62504f0d8d41b Subject: [Pce] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-initiated-p2mp-lsp-00.txt X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 05:26:12 -0000 --089e0111e0da03d62504f0d8d41b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi PCErs, We have uploaded a new I.D. for PCE-Inititaed P2MP TE LSP. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-initiated-p2mp-lsp-00 It is a companion document to the Stateful PCE for P2MP. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-01 We request WG for feedback and comments. Regards, Dhruv ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Date: Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 10:51 AM Subject: New Version Notification for draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-initiated-p2mp-lsp-00.txt To: Udayasree Palle , Dhruv Dhody < dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> A new version of I-D, draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-initiated-p2mp-lsp-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Dhruv Dhody and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-initiated-p2mp-lsp Revision: 00 Title: PCEP Extensions for PCE-initiated Point-to-Multipoint LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model Document date: 2014-01-26 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 9 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-initiated-p2mp-lsp-00.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-initiated-p2mp-lsp/ Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-initiated-p2mp-lsp-00 Abstract: The Path Computation Element (PCE) has been identified as an appropriate technology for the determination of the paths of point- to-multipoint (P2MP) TE LSPs. The extensions described in [I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] provide stateful control of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE LSP) via PCE communication Protocol (PCEP), for a model where the Path Computation Client (PCC) delegates control over one or more locally configured LSPs to the PCE. Further [I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] describes the creation and deletion of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model. This document provides extensions required for PCEP so as to enable stateful PCE- Initiated point-to-multipoint (P2MP) TE LSP instantiation. 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 --089e0111e0da03d62504f0d8d41b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable --089e0111e0da03d62504f0d8d41b-- From adrian@olddog.co.uk Wed Jan 29 07:37:28 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C2F51A0230 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 07:37:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.116 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.116 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.77] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Phg_LomI1-WK for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 07:37:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 149211A0207 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 07:37:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s0TFbNTm005787; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:37:23 GMT Received: from 950129200 (108.26.90.92.rev.sfr.net [92.90.26.108]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s0TFbL0X005756 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:37:22 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:37:20 -0000 Message-ID: <00b901cf1d08$0024f680$006ee380$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac8dB/s6phnua1puTceeUwZ1LBopqg== Content-language: en-gb X-TM-AS-MML: No Cc: pce-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: [Pce] Next steps with draft-ietf-pce-questions X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 15:37:28 -0000 Hi Working Group (and chairs), When this I-D was adopted there was talk about how we might keep it alive to collect other questions as they came along. Well, it has been a bit quiet and no-one seems to have had anything to add. Dan and I have a few minor edits, so I will spin a new version before the Feb 14th cut-off. If anyone has anything to add, now is a very good time to say so. But after that we wonder what the future holds. Is this a living document forever doomed to roll rocks up hills? Or should we draw a line under it, publishing it as a snap-shot of the current scenery, and let another document be written if more questions develop? Thanks, Adrian From ramon.casellas@cttc.es Thu Jan 30 00:57:44 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D81AD1A044E for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 00:57:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N1o6eNnsW1Ie for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 00:57:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from navarro.puc.rediris.es (navarro.puc.rediris.es [IPv6:2001:720:418:ca01::131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4275F1A03C0 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 00:57:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from [84.88.62.208] (helo=leo) by navarro.puc.rediris.es with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1W8nRL-0001Rv-6G for pce@ietf.org; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:57:39 +0100 Received: from [84.88.61.50] (unknown [84.88.61.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by leo (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B51FC1FE2A for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:57:35 +0100 (CET) X-Envelope-From: ramon.casellas@cttc.es Message-ID: <52EA1402.9050809@cttc.es> Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:57:38 +0100 From: Ramon Casellas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pce@ietf.org References: <00b901cf1d08$0024f680$006ee380$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <00b901cf1d08$0024f680$006ee380$@olddog.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spamina-Bogosity: Unsure X-Spamina-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) X-Spamina-Spam-Report: Content analysis details: (-1.0 points) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -0.0 BAYES_20 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 5 to 20% [score: 0.1915] Subject: Re: [Pce] Next steps with draft-ietf-pce-questions X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Path Computation Element List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 08:57:45 -0000 El 29/01/2014 16:37, Adrian Farrel escribió: > Hi Working Group (and chairs), > > When this I-D was adopted there was talk about how we might keep it alive to > collect other questions as they came along. Well, it has been a bit quiet and > no-one seems to have had anything to add. > Or should we draw a line under it, publishing it as a snap-shot of the current > scenery, and let another document be written if more questions develop? Dear Adrian, all, Just my humble opinion: if the WG moves forward with new "items" (such as it has been the case, for example, of the stateful capabilities) which could, in turn, raise futher questions, the "time window" during which such questions will be identified will probably span months if not years. In light of this, I believe the document covers well the main questions regarding PCE as it is now (barred that someone else may propose additional Q&A) and justifies publication in its (basically) current format. -bis, -ter versions could be written in the future, if need be. Thanks R.
Hi PCErs,

We have uploaded a new I.D. for PCE-I= nititaed P2MP TE LSP.=A0
ht= tp://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-initiated-p2mp-lsp-00=

It is a companion document to the Stateful PCE for P2MP.
http://too= ls.ietf.org/html/draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-01

We reque= st WG for feedback and comments.=A0

Regards,=
Dhruv
=A0

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:= <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
Date:= Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 10:51 AM
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-initiate= d-p2mp-lsp-00.txt
To: Udayasree Palle <udayasree.palle@huawei.com>, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>



A new version of I-D, draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-initiated-p2mp-lsp-00.tx= t
has been successfully submitted by Dhruv Dhody and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-initiated-p2mp-lsp Revision: =A0 =A0 =A0 00
Title: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0PCEP Extensions for PCE-initiated Point-to-Multip= oint LSP Setup in a Stateful PCE Model
Document date: =A02014-01-26
Group: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Individual Submission
Pages: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A09
URL: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0h= ttp://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-initiated-p= 2mp-lsp-00.txt
Status: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 https://datatr= acker.ietf.org/doc/draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-initiated-p2mp-lsp/
Htmlized: =A0 =A0 =A0 http://tools.ietf.or= g/html/draft-palle-pce-stateful-pce-initiated-p2mp-lsp-00


Abstract:
=A0 =A0The Path Computation Element (PCE) has been identified as an
=A0 =A0appropriate technology for the determination of the paths of point-<= br> =A0 =A0to-multipoint (P2MP) TE LSPs. =A0The extensions described in
=A0 =A0[I-D.ietf-pce-stateful-pce] provide stateful control of Multiprotoco= l
=A0 =A0Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE<= br> =A0 =A0LSP) via PCE communication Protocol (PCEP), for a model where the =A0 =A0Path Computation Client (PCC) delegates control over one or more
=A0 =A0locally configured LSPs to the PCE. =A0Further
=A0 =A0[I-D.ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp] describes the creation and deletion=
=A0 =A0of PCE-initiated LSPs under the stateful PCE model. =A0This document=
=A0 =A0provides extensions required for PCEP so as to enable stateful PCE-<= br> =A0 =A0Initiated point-to-multipoint (P2MP) TE LSP instantiation.




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

The IETF Secretariat