Re: [Idr] [Bier] PCE Controller & SDN Controller & Netconf/Yang NMS Controller - lines blurred and can the names be used ubiquitously meaning the same

Adrian Farrel <> Sat, 21 November 2020 15:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EE063A0DED; Sat, 21 Nov 2020 07:47:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7a_VHaktI76Q; Sat, 21 Nov 2020 07:47:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9599A3A0E33; Sat, 21 Nov 2020 07:46:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 0ALFkssH025045; Sat, 21 Nov 2020 15:46:55 GMT
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2BF62203A; Sat, 21 Nov 2020 15:46:54 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD19722032; Sat, 21 Nov 2020 15:46:54 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 0ALFkroZ020064 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 21 Nov 2020 15:46:54 GMT
From: Adrian Farrel <>
To: 'Gyan Mishra' <>
Cc: 'BESS' <>, 'BIER WG' <>, 'IDR List' <>, 'SPRING WG' <>, 'TEAS WG' <>, 'lsr' <>,
References: <> <00d501d6bb47$7ee160a0$7ca421e0$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2020 15:46:53 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <039401d6c01d$893ded90$9bb9c8b0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0395_01D6C01D.893E62C0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQF9YbXHIOSWBk8yeY9fu/naMBX0BwJnuPwTAbmwFjqqZGg3wA==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--19.728-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--19.728-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Result: 10--19.728200-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: TmlY9+XBoTmx4Q5iE/G4VXFPUrVDm6jth4A8KRmrGe2qvcIF1TcLYEwi cw3eWSo0YLQ3+9wW9SYaHpAEsECl+h0HHInBeaK9JOMhINYq80wHgh3sKJBzP8pj/9aYiP+h3SZ uwROk0qHmLM5grIF7CSLuZAk1qAxOehY/DCk+INGecgASc+pqBczdhaN37iAM5lhx0mBJyPEcUn IIyt02Sa9sD66wAjsxf6x5zoWNtEgpNfI+R65HNc50DGuIExk9fiA7Y+GFqDOsaBVGMabQl+//v bMLiEkVS23jFwoI7b1+1uW3cIJ1vBWVVkGuW6Jr3zSg/bkXzGmOz/LLJUcaHsmqrXFLFjsW6aX8 TYIrj1uFZCZln65Hjpt6E4YKOIuohfUatHkEWNT4Wr1WT+bU2pkShYcLpGH9dPj9LUBj/ks8Pun 5tcXDXI0id0pIhqxT48CdlKt5w6+7Cjv/4LgPYmhQCsqhuTNihlL5/PVMMhK+vSKPcZwFluCfwd Xr9Uztu7C4hieFwVKAMuqetGVettLvsKjhs0lda9+JVKonO7eLZAVphLW/bXkguuQorcgMg5IQ3 dbS17M+Pal/bipFlwhigbA7cP7I6E96vWKSeR9+3BndfXUhXQ==
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] [Bier] PCE Controller & SDN Controller & Netconf/Yang NMS Controller - lines blurred and can the names be used ubiquitously meaning the same
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2020 15:47:05 -0000

Hi again Gyan,


I think we’re narrowing down and getting somewhat esoteric for the mailing lists we’re spamming.

> Similarly other use cases such as with TEAS TS-Transport slice and being able
> to provision TS and capturing the TS Enhanced VPN RT & resource information
> and leveraging BGP-LS to do the same data gathering & ZTP like controller style
> provisioning. 

Is there a fundamental difference between ZTP & Day N provisioning and path computation for traffic engineering provisioning? It’s all determining how to configure the network to best carry traffic. 

Gyan> In my mind the fundamental difference would be TE - control plane TEDs and
forwarding plane routing action path computation and instantiation of path action
as compare to a NMS type Netconf/Yang configuration snippet push function not
routing or TE related.


[Adrian] I think it depends. The protocols are just tools. You could have a centralised TE system with a PCE to preform computations, but you can use any combinations of protocols to extract information from the network (IGPs, BGP-LS, PCEP-LS, Netconf, …) and any combination of protocols to program the network devices to install TE paths, reserve resources, and configure traffic forwarding rules (PCEP, RSVP-TE, Netconf, …).