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
>
>