Re: [Pce] Re: Progress on draft-ietf-pce-discovery-reqs-01.txt

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

> A network manager would probably want NMS data on all
> of the PCEs in the network. It's a useful mechanism in
> discovery to let the managed entities (PCEs in this
> case) notify the NMS about changes (such as
> capability). This is particularly so in cases where
> there are many such entities.

Yes, but let's not get things out of proportion. There will always be at
least as many network switches/routers as there are PCEs in any network
(such is the nature of the architecture).

How do switches/routers currently keep their capabilities (i.e. inventory)
up-to-date with NMS? Why shouldn't PCEs use the same technique?

> So, I think we have 2 related points here:
> (1) External entities (e.g., NMS) should be able to
> listen in on PCE changes, including detecting new PCEs
> as they appear. This reduces polling.

Agreed. If the NMS is capable of listening, there is nothing in any of the
suggestions that prohibits it. However, we should not, I think, make it
compulsory for an NMS to listen to the PCE discovery protocols since this
may be operationally impossible in some configurations.

> (2) PCEs should be able to assist the NMS in
> discovering them and their capabilities

Certainly if we allow capabilities exchange as part of the PCC-PCE
protocol, this would be possible. The NMS would simply behave as a PCC
(which it will probably want to do anyway for computational purposes).

> I'm basically trying to reduce the amount of
> discovery-related traffic. The latter often gives
> network management a bad name :-).
>
> Best wishes
> Stephen
>
> --- Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Jean-Louis is right; the requirement is focused on
> > allowing PCEs to convey
> > information to PCCs.
> >
> > Another entity would be able to "listen in" and
> > gather information for its
> > own use, but such a requirement is out of scope for
> > this document.
> >
> > I guess it depends on the purpose of the function
> > you are suggesting. For
> > example, if you want the NMS to be able to track the
> > status of the PCE,
> > this would probably be a perfectly adequate
> > technique. However, it does
> > rely on the NMS being able to listen in. That is:
> > suppose the solution to
> > PCE discovery is an opaque LSA in OSPF; you would
> > need the NMS to be able
> > to participate (at least passively) in the OSPF
> > exchanges. Since the NMS
> > may be remote through a distinct management plane
> > network, this might not
> > be possible.
> >
> > The alternative solution to gathering status
> > information at the NMS would
> > appear to be unchanged from the way network devices
> > report status
> > information today. From an IETF standardisation
> > point of view, this
> > requires MIB modules to allow the NMS to read
> > information and to let the
> > PCE report asynchronous Notifications. Obviously,
> > piles of other
> > proprietary or standard mechanisms exist outside the
> > IETF.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Adrian
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN"
> > <[e-mail]>
> > To: "Stephen Morris" <[e-mail]>;
> > <[e-mail]>;
> > <[e-mail]>; "JP Vasseur"
> > <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: "Ting_Wo Chung" <[e-mail]>;
> > <[e-mail]>; "Richard
> > Rabbat" <[e-mail]>;
> > "raymond.zhang"
> > <[e-mail]>; "Paul Mabey"
> > <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 6:49 AM
> > Subject: RE: [Pce] Re: Progress on
> > draft-ietf-pce-discovery-reqs-01.txt
> >
> >
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> > If the "interested entity" is a PCC then the answer
> > is YES.
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > JL
> >
> > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > De : [e-mail]
> > > [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de
> > Stephen Morris
> > > Envoyé : dimanche 4 septembre 2005 23:27
> > > À : [e-mail];
> > [e-mail];
> > > JP Vasseur
> > > Cc : Ting_Wo Chung; [e-mail]; Richard Rabbat;
> > > raymond.zhang; Paul Mabey
> > > Objet : Re: [Pce] Re: Progress on
> > draft-ietf-pce-discovery-reqs-01.txt
> > >
> > > Hi JP, All
> > > In section 6.3. "PCE Information Synchronization",
> > does this
> > > requirement allow for a PCE to notify an
> > interested entity
> > > (e.g., a network management system) of a
> > capability (or some
> > > other) change?
> > > Best wishes
> > > Stephen
> > >
> > > --- dimitri papadimitriou <[e-mail]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > hi jp, all
> > > >
> > > > the following chart discussed by JL during the
> > last meeting pretty
> > > > well summarize the issues
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> <http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/05aug/slides/pce-1/sld7.htm>
> > > >
> > > > based on the discussion one has had during the
> > > > meeting (and even if it
> > > > not appropriate to consider specific
> > implementation)
> > > > one could draw some
> > > > line that for "discovering" the exact state
> > (load,
> > > > congestion) and
> > > > detailed capabilities a protocol preserving
> > several
> > > > requirements such as
> > > > adapted to exchange of such detailed
> > information,
> > > > minimize overhead
> > > > (conservative), confidentiality, etc.
> > > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > > - dimitri.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > JP Vasseur wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Jean-Louis,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Aug 31, 2005, at 3:13 AM, LE ROUX
> > Jean-Louis
> > > > RD-CORE-LAN wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hi Jean-Philippe,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> we plan to post a new revision by
> > mid-september.
> > > > >> Is that OK?
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > Perfect, thanks. Provided that the remaining
> > > > issues are sorted out,  we
> > > > > could go for WG LC on this ID.
> > > > >
> > > > > JP.
> > > > >
> > > > >> Regards,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> JL
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> -----Message d'origine-----
> > > > >>> De : JP Vasseur [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > > >>> Envoyé : mardi 30 août 2005 17:52
> > > > >>> À : LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN; Paul
> > Mabey;
> > > > Eiji Oki;
> > > > >>> Richard Rabbat; Ting_Wo Chung; raymond.zhang
> > > > >>> Cc : [e-mail]
> > > > >>> Objet : Progress on
> > > > draft-ietf-pce-discovery-reqs-01.txt
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Hi,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> First of all, thanks for the very
> > significant
> > > > progress which
> > > > >>> has been made on this ID over the past 6
> > months.
> > > > As discussed
> > > > >>> during the last meeting in Paris, there are
> > > > still a few
> > > > >>> issues to be sorted out.
> > > > >>> Could we try to close on these remaining
> > issues
> > > > so as to
> > > > >>> quickly start the protocol work (we're a bit
> > > > late on this  Milestone) ?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Thanks.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> JP.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Pce mailing list
> > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
> > > > >
> > > > > .
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Pce mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new
Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
>
>


_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce