Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-carrozzo-pce-pcep-route-price-00.txt
Gino Carrozzo <g.carrozzo@nextworks.it> Mon, 26 March 2012 13:50 UTC
Return-Path: <g.carrozzo@nextworks.it>
X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38A5721E809B for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 06:50:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.732
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.732 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KAt23fB6ptlq for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 06:50:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercurio.nextworks.it (mercurio.nextworks.it [213.182.68.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DBFE221E809A for <pce@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 06:50:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercurio.nextworks.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71041308007; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:50:22 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at nextworks.it
Received: from mercurio.nextworks.it ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercurio.nextworks.it [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hvC32dA-7i4q; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:50:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [130.129.21.68] (dhcp-1544.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.21.68]) by mercurio.nextworks.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1617E304004; Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:50:09 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4F7073F2.3010303@nextworks.it>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:49:38 +0200
From: Gino Carrozzo <g.carrozzo@nextworks.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120312 Thunderbird/11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn
References: <OF9E1BB3D4.2DE91195-ON482579C9.002F6494-482579C9.00322C56@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <OF9E1BB3D4.2DE91195-ON482579C9.002F6494-482579C9.00322C56@zte.com.cn>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000306010900050703050708"
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-carrozzo-pce-pcep-route-price-00.txt
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:50:20 -0000
Hi Fei thanks for your comments. You captured the core I-D concept: a Service-PCE for route offers plus (bare minimum) PCEP extensions to describe prices for those offers. You're right, management-based PCE usage by NMS has also been sketched in RFC4655 sec. 5.5, but in a context which seems to us still more applicable to the final service provisioning than the preliminary service offering (for negotiation). Our I-D aims at targeting this second case, by adding a route price for the customer into the PCE response: thus, the ERO is not the sole computation result of interest at PCC. In terms of framework, surely the NSBP can include functionalities typically provided by NMS/OSS for a single routing domain (e.g. the FCAPS). It'd not be the case in multi-domain cases. To this purpose, TMF IPSphere can be just a reference abstract service framework, and the Service PCE can provide a routing functionality also for the route offering/negotiation phase. Hope this clarifies a bit. br Gino On 22/03/2012 10:08, zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn wrote: > > Hi Gino > > An interesting idea. > > If my understanding is not wrong, the draft describes the architecture > and PCEP extensions that the NSBP (PCC) sends out the route offer > computation request to Service-PCE. > > Since that the NMS (PCC) sends out the PCReq messages to PCE is > described in RFC4655, What the procedure looks like if NMS is also > involved? or NMS will not appear when the route offer computation is > adopted? > > Sorry that I am not familar with the TMF IPSPHERE Framework, hope your > clarification. > > Regards > > Fei > > > *Gino Carrozzo <g.carrozzo@nextworks.it>* > 发件人: pce-bounces@ietf.org > > 2012-03-04 16:21 > > > 收件人 > pce@ietf.org > 抄送 > > 主题 > Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-carrozzo-pce-pcep-route-price-00.txt > > > > > > > > > > Dear all > > we've just posted a new I-D about extending PCEP with a new route > information, the price. > As explained in the I-D, the route price is an additional info with > respect to the route cost(s) currently well covered by existing PCE RFCs > > And this extension seems to us quite useful in those scenarios where a > Service Plane interfaces to PCE for elaborating its route offers. > > Your feedbacks and comments would be very much appreciated. > > br > Gino > > On 04/03/2012 9.06, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > > > > Title : PCEP extensions for the computation of route offers with price > > Author(s) : Gino Carrozzo > > Giacomo Bernini > > Giada Landi > > Filename : draft-carrozzo-pce-pcep-route-price-00.txt > > Pages : 17 > > Date : 2012-03-04 > > > > The PCE defined in RFC4655 is a functional entity generally confined > > in the control plane to elaborate explicit optimal routes with > > related costs to be installed as [G]MPLS tunnels/LSPs. The resulting > > route cost(s)/metric(s) are Traffic Engineering indicators used by > > the network administrator (carrier) to optimize the usage of its > > network resources. > > > > In this document a framework for the usage of PCE in cooperation with > > the Network Service and Business Plane (NSBP) is proposed, along with > > related PCEP extensions. The NSBP invokes this extended PCE (service > > PCE) to trigger the computation of network service offers with > > related price information. The price of a network connectivity > > service generally depends on strategic factors, but it could also be > > influenced by the amount of mobilized network resources (along the > > route), the ingress/egress interfaces/PoPs, etc. Therefore, it could > > be provided by an extended service-PCE as an additional route > > information. > > > > This document focuses on the extensions to the PCEP protocol in > > support of the computation of route prices for intra- and inter- > > domain network connectivity services. Mechanisms for elaborating and > > retrieving price information in the PCE are vendor-specific and out > > of the scope of this document. > > > > > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carrozzo-pce-pcep-route-price-00.txt > > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > > > This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: > > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carrozzo-pce-pcep-route-price-00.txt > > > > _______________________________________________ > > I-D-Announce mailing list > > I-D-Announce@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > > Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > Pce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > >
- Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-carrozzo-pce-pcep-rou… Gino Carrozzo
- Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-carrozzo-pce-pcep-rou… zhang.fei3
- Re: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-carrozzo-pce-pcep-rou… Gino Carrozzo