IETF Logo Mail Archive

[CCAMP] Objective function draft

"George Swallow (swallow)" <swallow@cisco.com> Tue, 11 September 2012 19:29 UTC

Return-Path: <swallow@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E16121F8692 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:29:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cl0-oCm6sRxN for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:29:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B17A21F85EA for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:28:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2406; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1347391737; x=1348601337; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=sC+4AoyWUTjeGwfkbOUYxZagZmNeZcC1OLyWW6OHxD8=; b=VUCnHma0ZUGlGBU3HPiF53E+fy6KIBg4fdafcpec+cp0VUUBCd1j0CCm 8WuuDb4Yk1w6XiqqiCTrjikGTWU6wIr8SwVT9uUDpilc0cm9is23xca32 Or/T8tLdKPE2oFzgw8JOeGPYNqgVaoYS9XndpXJXayP/hjZVf8mLZeqE8 s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EALSQT1CtJV2b/2dsb2JhbABFgku5C4EHgicSAWYSAQwBcycEDieHbps6oFeRNgOVX442gWeCZg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.80,406,1344211200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="120515393"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Sep 2012 19:28:57 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com [173.37.183.82]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q8BJSuo6017682 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 11 Sep 2012 19:28:56 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x10.cisco.com ([169.254.15.216]) by xhc-rcd-x08.cisco.com ([173.37.183.82]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 14:28:56 -0500
From: "George Swallow (swallow)" <swallow@cisco.com>
To: Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com>
Thread-Topic: Objective function draft
Thread-Index: AQHNkFOv4OOKfbxolEe2spFvFX1LfA==
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 19:28:56 +0000
Message-ID: <CC750935.C0DF%swallow@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616
x-originating-ip: [10.98.32.167]
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19178.000
x-tm-as-result: No--28.301900-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CC750935C0DFswallowciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: [CCAMP] Objective function draft
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 19:29:05 -0000

Julien -

Reading the CCAMP notes (which capture little of the actual discussion) I see that there may have been a perception in the room that PCE functionality at the UNI-N was assumed (actual or proxy).

This is not the case.  The reason for our draft is that with the UNI, much of the functionality that resides at the headend is moved to the UNI-N.  So the UNI-C needs a way to express an objective function even if there is no PCE.

Operationally it seems burdensome to require a PCEP at the UNI-C and a PCEP at the UNI-N, when all that is being done is enabling the UNI-N to perform what the client would do if it were connected to the network via a normal link.

Do you still object to the draft?

Thanks,

…George

v2.9.2 | Report a Bug | By Email