Re: [Pce] Concurrent Optimization and More

"Daniel King" <dk@danielking.net> Thu, 19 June 2008 09:49 UTC

Return-Path: <pce-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: pce-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-pce-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 170D628C20A; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 02:49:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: pce@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E232028C20F for <pce@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 02:49:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mCH9KG-ENtPq for <pce@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 02:49:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.170]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F95328C20A for <pce@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 02:49:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id y36so952468ugd.46 for <pce@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 02:50:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.210.75.6 with SMTP id x6mr1672174eba.29.1213869018972; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 02:50:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Serenity ( [88.97.23.122]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b30sm654964ika.3.2008.06.19.02.50.15 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 19 Jun 2008 02:50:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Daniel King <dk@danielking.net>
To: pce@ietf.org
References: <0D63518CCAD12D479B4C66FE4572D78D035D6A56@E03MVW2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
In-Reply-To: <0D63518CCAD12D479B4C66FE4572D78D035D6A56@E03MVW2-UKDY.domain1.systemhost.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:50:25 +0100
Message-ID: <002701c8d1f1$e7aa4b80$b6fee280$@net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-index: AcjR1SVOYXa7NpiiQlqiI9RX22M6nAAG9VTQ
Content-Language: en-gb
Subject: Re: [Pce] Concurrent Optimization and More
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/pce>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0514316799=="
Sender: pce-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pce-bounces@ietf.org

Hi David, 

 

A few quick responses:

 

>>1. How does the protocol for computing a single path works in a
hierarchical network (more than one level of PCE's)?

 

So far this requirement has been out of scope for the current work. There is
growing momentum in the application of PCE to multi-layer networks, ASON,
and "domain-paths." So this topic will require further thought and
discussion.

 

>>2. What the draft for the concurrent optimization referred to: only inside
of a sub-domain or also an inter-domain optimization which requires
communication between the PCE's?

 

As above. The pce-global-concurrent-optimization draft focuses on single
domain optimisation, specifically the PCC-PCE communication needs and
protocol extensions to support the concurrent optimisation. Although, the
authors do mention that a Global Concurrent Optimization (GCO) is applicable
to a Virtual Network Topology (VNT) and multi-layer traffic engineering for
new deployments. 

 

>>3. Can we assume that the node's demands are splittable (i.e., can be
simultaneously satisfied by more than one path)?

 

I may need some further clarity on this question. Do you mean that there may
be more than one possible solution to a path computation, or that the
solution to the computation may be a set of "parallel" paths with some
assumption of load sharing (e.g. inverse multiplexing)?

 

The answer to the first question is yes and is already done, although some
work might be required to allow the PCE to supply a choice of paths to the
PCC.

 

The answer to the second question is also yes, but (very simple) protocol
extensions will be needed to handle this case.

 

Other relevant drafts you may find interesting for this topic include:

 

A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture 

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4655.txt

 

A Framework for Inter-Domain Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic
Engineering

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4726.txt

 

A Per-Domain Path Computation Method for Establishing Inter-Domain Traffic
Engineering (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs)

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5152.txt

 

Evaluation of existing GMPLS Protocols against Multi Layer and Multi Region
Networks (MLN/MRN)

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-05.txt

 

A Backward Recursive PCE-based Computation (BRPC) Procedure To Compute
Shortest Constrained Inter-domain Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pce-brpc-09.txt

 

Br, Dan

 

 

From: pce-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
david.amzallag@bt.com
Sent: 19 June 2008 07:25
To: pce@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] Concurrent Optimization and More

 

Hi,

 

I have three basic questions (but I might the correct place in RFCs or
drafts for that...);

 

1. How does the protocol for computing a single path works in a hierarchical
network (more than one level of PCE's)?
2. What the draft for the concurrent optimization referred to: only inside
of a sub-domain or also an inter-domain optimization which requires
communication between the PCE's?

3. Can we assume that the node's demands are splittable (i.e., can be
simultaneously satisfied by more than one path)?

 

Many thanks,

 

David Amzallag

BT

 

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce