Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft
John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> Wed, 19 September 2012 08:14 UTC
Return-Path: <jdrake@juniper.net>
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 4021621F860F for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 01:14:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.366
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.366 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.233, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 s8PXnx6sCEgr for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 01:14:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og121.obsmtp.com (exprod7og121.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BCB121F8600 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 01:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob121.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUFl++deinDWeFG4StEuLRD7+8+0pQgMf@postini.com; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 01:14:54 PDT
Received: from EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::c821:7c81:f21f:8bc7]) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::fc92:eb1:759:2c72%11]) with mapi; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 01:13:14 -0700
From: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
To: "George Swallow (swallow)" <swallow@cisco.com>, Igor Bryskin <IBryskin@advaoptical.com>, Gert Grammel <ggrammel@juniper.net>, Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 01:13:12 -0700
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Objective function draft
Thread-Index: AQHNlRqG4OOKfbxolEe2spFvFX1LfJeQLiYAgABZSICAAADMAIAAG88AgACutaA=
Message-ID: <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A63321B504@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net>
References: <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A6330D6666@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <CC7E54F5.DADB%swallow@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CC7E54F5.DADB%swallow@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 08:14:56 -0000
George, It was simply a question for clarification. A framework document is definitely needed. Yours irrespectively, John > -----Original Message----- > From: George Swallow (swallow) [mailto:swallow@cisco.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 1:47 PM > To: John E Drake; Igor Bryskin; Gert Grammel; Julien Meuric > Cc: ccamp@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft > > John - > > The UNI-N can simply respond with no-route-to-destination. Or would > you prefer a more policy specific error. In any case the UNI-N has > control. > AFAIK, that is the primary reason for a UNI in the first place! > > //George > > > On 9/18/12 11:07 AM, "John E Drake" <jdrake@juniper.net> wrote: > > >Is there a requirement that the objective function specified by the > >user be acceptable to the network? > > > >Yours irrespectively, > > > >John > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On > >> Behalf Of Igor Bryskin > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 8:05 AM > >> To: George Swallow (swallow); Gert Grammel; Julien Meuric > >> Cc: ccamp@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft > >> > >> I completely agree with George. Signaling the objective function is > >> no different from signaling EROs or affinities, this is just another > >> service specific policy, an instruction to the network as to how the > >> service needs to be routed across the network domain. I think > Georges > >> documents complement our (GMPLS-ENNI) solution. We have the same > >> objective but target different groups of clients. Specifically, > >> George's clients are those who cannot or won't deal with the routing > >> information leaked by the network, but have certain preferences' as > >> to how their services need to be routed and rely fully on the > network > >> to do the routing. Our clients are those that are capable and > willing > >> to process the network advertisements and to control the routing > >> themselves. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Igor > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On > >> Behalf Of George Swallow (swallow) > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:45 AM > >> To: Gert Grammel; Julien Meuric > >> Cc: ccamp@ietf.org > >> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft > >> > >> 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" <ggrammel@juniper.net> 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: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of George Swallow (swallow) > >> >Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 12:19:21 PM > >> >To: Julien Meuric > >> >Cc: ccamp@ietf.org > >> >Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft > >> > > >> >Hi Julien - > >> > > >> >On 9/17/12 9:37 AM, "Julien Meuric" <julien.meuric@orange.com> > 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 > >> >CCAMP@ietf.org > >> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp > >> > > >> > > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> CCAMP mailing list > >> CCAMP@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp > >> _______________________________________________ > >> CCAMP mailing list > >> CCAMP@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
- Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft George Swallow (swallow)
- [CCAMP] Objective function draft George Swallow (swallow)
- Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft Adrian Farrel
- Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft George Swallow (swallow)
- Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft Julien Meuric
- Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft George Swallow (swallow)
- Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft Dieter Beller
- Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft Gert Grammel
- Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft Dieter Beller
- Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft Julien Meuric
- Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft Julien Meuric
- Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft JP Vasseur (jvasseur)
- [CCAMP] R: Objective function draft BELOTTI, SERGIO (SERGIO)
- Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft George Swallow (swallow)
- Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft Vishnu Pavan Beeram
- Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft Ong, Lyndon
- Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] UNI/NNI (was: Objective function draf… Julien Meuric
- Re: [CCAMP] UNI/NNI (was: Objective function draf… Daniele Ceccarelli
- Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft Gert Grammel
- Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] UNI/NNI Julien Meuric
- Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft Julien Meuric
- Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft Julien Meuric
- Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft Gert Grammel
- Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft Dieter Beller
- Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] Objective function draft Igor Bryskin