Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft

["George Swallow (swallow)" <[e-mail]>]

Gert -

Agreed.  I was loose in my terminology.  The Objective function is
information that is signaled to the routing function as a constraint.
There is a strong analogy and precedent for RSVP-TE/GMPLS of a loose-hop
in an ERO.  Another example would be Resource Affinities signaled in the
Session Attribute object.

...George

On 9/17/12 5:22 PM, "Gert Grammel" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Hi George,
>
>The objective function is in the end a routing information. Mixing
>routing and signaling in one protocol is something I don't feel
>comfortable with.
>
>In other words, if routing is needed between client and server, UNI is
>the wrong choice. ENNI should be considered instead and
>Draft-beeram-ccamp-gmpls-enni would be a good starting point.
>
>
>Gert
>
>
>
>________________________________________
>From: [e-mail] on behalf of George Swallow (swallow)
>Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:19:21 PM
>To: Julien Meuric
>Cc: [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft
>
>Hi Julien -
>
>On 9/17/12 9:37 AM, "Julien Meuric" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>Hi George.
>>
>>Sorry for the late response. You are right: the minutes are not enough
>>to trace the full discussion (which we also resumed right after the
>>meeting). Let us start by thanking Adrian (as AD? former PCE co-chair?
>>author of... ;-) ) for bringing the PCE-associated vocabulary to a
>>common understanding.
>>
>>Actually my concern is sustained by 2 points:
>>
>>1- The scope of the draft is about giving control of the routing
>>objective function to the client node facing a transport layer. I see
>>already several existing solution to achieve it:
>>- a PCEP request from the signaling head node is an option (which is
>>associated to the advertisement of the supported objectives in PCEP);
>>- building IGP adjacencies between client and transport edge nodes
>>(a.k.a. "border model") is another one.
>>In this context, it do not think extending RSVP-TE for this kind of
>>application is worth the effort, since the requirement can already be
>>addressed.
>
>As I understand it, in the optical and OTN cases, the border model would
>not be popular
>as in many organizations this crosses political boundaries.
>
>The point of the draft is to keep the UNI implementation simple and not
>require a PCEP on the uni-c or necessarily on the uni-n.  We will keep the
>format aligned so if the UNI-N needs to make a request of a PCS, it can do
>so rather simply.
>>
>>2- There are cases when previous options are ruled out of a given
>>deployment. I do believe that it is not simply due to protocol
>>exclusion, but rather to the fact that the SP wants transport routing
>>decisions to remain entirely within the transport network (in order to
>>fully leave the routing policy in the hands of people doing the layer
>>dimensioning). Thus, I feel this trade-off in path selection tuning is
>>rather unlikely to happen and I fear we may be talking about RSVP-TE
>>over-engineering here.
>
>The idea is simply to allow the client to express its needs/wishes.  The
>UNI-N remains in control.  By policy it can use the objective function or
>not.  Further if it does use the objective function and fails to find a
>path it can either say that there was no path or it
>proceed to setup what it can.
>
>>(That is also why I preferred to consider your
>>I-Ds separately during the CCAMP meeting.)
>
>Agreed.  I will ask for separate slots.  The discussion at the end was
>rather disjointed.
>
>>
>>However, my comments are mostly related to the client/transport
>>relationship. If the I-D is extended to cover more use cases with wider
>>scopes (Adrian has made interesting suggestions), turning the overlay
>>interconnection into one among a longer list, then my conclusion may be
>>different.
>
>I'm happy to widen the scope in this way.
>
>...George
>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Julien
>>
>>
>>Le 11/09/2012 21:28, George Swallow (swallow) a écrit :
>>> 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,
>>>
>>> ŠGeorge
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CCAMP mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>
>