RE : [Pce] New PCE working group I-Ds
LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN <jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com> Thu, 16 August 2007 09:10 UTC
Return-path: <pce-bounces@lists.ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ILbMy-0003gp-Gm; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 05:10:20 -0400
Received: from pce by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1ILbMw-0003gY-IH for pce-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 05:10:18 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ILbMv-0003g1-6t for pce@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 05:10:18 -0400
Received: from p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com ([195.101.245.15]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ILbMt-0007ee-CJ for pce@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 05:10:17 -0400
Received: from ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.193.117.152]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:10:08 +0200
Received: from 10.193.106.56 ([10.193.106.56]) by ftrdmel1.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.193.117.152]) via Exchange Front-End Server parowa2 ([10.193.117.117]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:10:08 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: RE : [Pce] New PCE working group I-Ds
From: LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN <jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com>
In-Reply-To: <46C3F9F9.7030805@psg.com>
References: <011001c7dcf6$ff420210$0300a8c0@your029b8cecfe> <8144761F31F48D4 3AD53D09F5350E380EDCC7A@FRVELSMBS22.ad2.ad.alcatel.com> <D109C8C97C15294495 117745780657AE082031D3@ftrdmel1> <8144761F31F48D43AD53D09F5350E380EDCCF4@FR VELSMBS22.ad2.ad.alcatel.com><3E693EBA-BB4C-4CD4-923B-A8C71AC47214@cisco.com>, <46C3F9F9.7030805@psg.com>
To: dpapadimitriou@psg.com, JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [Pce] New PCE working group I-Ds
Thread-Index: Acff43+q6BwMd8wVTmaWXAiolehXXgAAbZQe
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:09:55 +0200
Message-ID: <04C57FF1-6023-4C4E-A009-AAC0F3325DFC@mimectl>
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Web Access 6.5.7232.34
X-MimeCtl: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7232.34
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Aug 2007 09:10:08.0873 (UTC) FILETIME=[3E478D90:01C7DFE5]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: c8611c7316981838cbe4195d07ac7fdb
Cc: pce@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: pce@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/pce>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0049638060=="
Errors-To: pce-bounces@lists.ietf.org
>> PCE_1 advertizing OF_1 attracts all demands in normal >> conditions while PCE_2 advertizing OF_2 attracts demands >> after failure/re-routing or other rare event >> >> hence, you would then be balancing between both PCEs >> after failure and when reverting and back again if the >> failure occur once more (e.g. flapping) >> >> i am not saying this will happen but heterogeneity in >> OF advertized may lead to unbalanced request between >> PCEs > > Which might precisely be a deployment objective. >then how do you ensure that prevent the oscillation effect ? The failure example you provide is solved by fixing flapping with a dampening mechanism, this is not a PCE issue by the way... Would you please provide a practical example where heterogeneity leads to oscillations? Regards, JL De: dimitri papadimitriou Date: jeu. 16/08/2007 09:17 À: JP Vasseur Cc: pce@ietf.org Objet : Re: [Pce] New PCE working group I-Ds hi JP Vasseur wrote: > Hi, > > Chair hat off > > On Aug 15, 2007, at 4:22 PM, PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri wrote: > >> hi j-l >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN >>> [mailto:jeanlouis.leroux@orange-ftgroup.com] >>> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 2:09 PM >>> To: PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri; adrian@olddog.co.uk; pce@ietf.org >>> Subject: RE: [Pce] New PCE working group I-Ds >>> >>> Hi Dimitri, >>> >>> Thanks for these comments. >>> >>> Please see inline, >>> >>> >>>> -----Message d'origine----- >>>> De : PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri >>>> [mailto:Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.be] >>>> Envoyé : mardi 14 août 2007 21:04 >>>> À : zzx-adrian@olddog.co.uk; pce@ietf.org >>>> Objet : RE: [Pce] New PCE working group I-Ds >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk] >>>>> Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 5:32 PM >>>>> To: pce@ietf.org >>>>> Subject: [Pce] New PCE working group I-Ds >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> The meeting in Chicago was broadly in support of adopting >>>> two I-Ds as >>>>> working group drafts: >>>>> >>>>> - Encoding of Objective Functions in Path Computation >>> Element (PCE) >>>>> communication and discovery protocols >>>>> draft-leroux-pce-of-01.txt >>>> >>>> ok, three comments though: >>>> >>>> - units B-R is from def. speed(bps)-res.capacity(b) -> ? >>>> please check >>> >>> B is in bps and R is in bps. >>> B-R is the actual bandwidth consumption on the link, in bps. >>> We will clarify the units in next revision. >> >> i thought that capacity/residual bandwidth was expressed in b >> and you were using the term speed for bps - pls check >> >>>> - still unclear to me whether isis pce disc. will or not use a >>>> separate inst. (cf. gen-app discussion at isis working group) >>> >>> ISIS pce disc relies on procedures defined in 4971. >>> This is a deployment issue to use same or separate instances. >> >> do you assume that you would leave such choice possible ? i >> was left with the impression after last isis mtg discussion >> that there is a real incentive for making this a recommended >> behavior > > Just to avoid confusion: the PCED is being carried within the ISIS > Router Capability TLV, the processing of which is defined in RFC4971. indeed, i am not referring to 4971 at such, i am referring to the fact that if exchanging non-routing info w/ is-is result in recommending separated instance then the ISIS PCE disc. w-g doc becomes a prime candidate for such recommendation. just a matter of consistency. >>>> - question about oscillation effects resulting from opposed obj. >>>> adv. from diff. pce's >>> >>> Would you please clarify and provide an example? >> >> PCE_1 advertizing OF_1 attracts all demands in normal >> conditions while PCE_2 advertizing OF_2 attracts demands >> after failure/re-routing or other rare event >> >> hence, you would then be balancing between both PCEs >> after failure and when reverting and back again if the >> failure occur once more (e.g. flapping) >> >> i am not saying this will happen but heterogeneity in >> OF advertized may lead to unbalanced request between >> PCEs > > Which might precisely be a deployment objective. then how do you ensure that prevent the oscillation effect ? thanks, -d. > Thanks. > > JP. > >> >> thanks, >> -d. >> >>> Regards, >>> >>> JL >>> >>>> >>>>> - Diff-Serv Aware Class Type Object for Path Computation Element >>>>> Communication Protocol draft-sivabalan-pce-dste-01.txt >>>> >>>> architectural impact to be clarified before moving forward i >>>> think that the important disc. point is whether such info >>>> obtained from TED or via other means >>>> >>>> also from <http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/minutes/pce.txt> >>>> >>>> * 13) Diff-Serv Aware Class Type Object for Path Computation Element >>>> * Communication Protocol >>>> * draft-sivabalan-pce-dste-00.txt (Jon Parker - 5mn) [95] >>>> * >>>> * Pce does not know class pool. >>>> * Dimitri: in interprovider context, how do you assure global >>>> significance? >>>> * Jon: this is an issue not tackled here. >>>> * Adrian: how PCE has knowledge class pool ? You would >>>> suggest to build this knowledge based on IGP >>>> * flooded information ? >>>> * JP: please respin the draft tackling issue raised by Dimitri >>>> * Not many people red the draft >>>> >>>> -> draft still does not seem to address that issue. >>>> >>>>> Can you please indicate your opinion. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Now that the inter-AS requirements work is stable, the >>>> authors of two >>>>> I-Ds related to the use of PCE for P2MP path computations >>>> (Adrian is >>>>> one of the >>>>> authors) have asked us to look at adopting this work. We >>>> think that a >>>>> little more discussion is needed first, and have asked them >>>> to present >>>>> the I-Ds in Vancouver so that we can make a decision immediately >>>>> afterwards. Please have a look at the I-Ds and send your >>>> comments to >>>>> the mailing list. >>>>> >>>>> - PCC-PCE Communication Requirements for Point to Multipoint >>>>> Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering (MPLS-TE) >>>>> draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-req-02.txt >>>>> >>>>> - Applicability of the Path Computation Element (PCE) to >>>>> Point-to-Multipoint (P2MP) Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) >>>>> and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE) >>>>> draft-yasukawa-pce-p2mp-app-00.txt >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> JP and Adrian >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Pce mailing list >>>>> Pce@lists.ietf.org >>>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Pce mailing list >>>> Pce@lists.ietf.org >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >>>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pce mailing list >> Pce@lists.ietf.org >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@lists.ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > > . > _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
- [Pce] New PCE working group I-Ds Adrian Farrel
- RE: [Pce] New PCE working group I-Ds LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN
- Re: [Pce] New PCE working group I-Ds Dan Li
- RE: [Pce] New PCE working group I-Ds LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN
- Re: [Pce] New PCE working group I-Ds Jaudelice Cavalcante de Oliveira
- RE: [Pce] New PCE working group I-Ds Zafar Ali (zali)
- RE: [Pce] New PCE working group I-Ds Dean Cheng (dcheng)
- [Pce] New PCE working group I-Ds Young Lee
- 答复: [Pce] New PCE working group I-Ds Mach Chen
- Re: [Pce] New PCE working group I-Ds Meral Shirazipour
- RE: [Pce] New PCE working group I-Ds fabien.verhaeghe
- RE: [Pce] New PCE working group I-Ds Lucy Yong
- RE: [Pce] New PCE working group I-Ds PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri
- RE: [Pce] New PCE working group I-Ds LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN
- RE: [Pce] New PCE working group I-Ds PAPADIMITRIOU Dimitri
- Re: [Pce] New PCE working group I-Ds JP Vasseur
- Re: [Pce] New PCE working group I-Ds dimitri papadimitriou
- RE : [Pce] New PCE working group I-Ds LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN
- [Pce] ISIS Separate instances [Was: New PCE worki… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Pce] New PCE working group I-Ds JP Vasseur
- [Pce] Re: ISIS Separate instances [Was: New PCE w… David Ward
- Re: [Pce] New PCE working group I-Ds Kenji Kumaki
- Re: [Pce] New PCE working group I-Ds Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Pce] New PCE working group I-Ds JP Vasseur