Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft

Gert Grammel <> Mon, 17 September 2012 21:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AE5021F85EF for <>; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.467
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q-qZfqHAfIFl for <>; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:26:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAB4C21F85C6 for <>; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:26:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (using TLSv1) by ([]) with SMTP ID; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:26:41 PDT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:22:31 -0700
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.355.2; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:22:31 -0700
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:24:03 -0700
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 21:22:30 +0000
Received: from mail66-va3 (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B28A4400B1 for <>; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 21:22:30 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); (null);; R:internal; EFV:INT
X-SpamScore: -33
X-BigFish: PS-33(zzbb2dI98dI9371Ic89bhec9Q1432I4015Id6f1izz1202h1d1ah1d2ahzz1033IL8275bh8275dhz2dh2a8h668h839h946hd25hf0ah107ah1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh1155h)
Received: from mail66-va3 (localhost.localdomain []) by mail66-va3 (MessageSwitch) id 1347916948119164_705; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 21:22:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FFD5400C6; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 21:22:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 21:22:24 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.16.0190.008; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 21:22:23 +0000
From: Gert Grammel <>
To: "George Swallow (swallow)" <>, Julien Meuric <>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Objective function draft
Thread-Index: AQHNlRqGKyfc7fsst0WOjIXQZVY+Ww==
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 21:22:22 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 21:26:42 -0000

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.


From: on behalf of George Swallow (swallow)
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:19:21 PM
To: Julien Meuric
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft

Hi Julien -

On 9/17/12 9:37 AM, "Julien Meuric" <> 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

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

I'm happy to widen the scope in this way.


>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