Re: [Teas] IETF97 minutes posted--Regarding "PCE in Native IP network"
"Aijun Wang" <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn> Mon, 12 December 2016 03:03 UTC
Return-Path: <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D071E12957B; Sun, 11 Dec 2016 19:03:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.784
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.784 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_BL=0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_L3=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oZicO1FeCg7q; Sun, 11 Dec 2016 19:03:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tsinghua.org.cn (mail.tsinghua.org.cn [58.83.224.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BD8B12957A; Sun, 11 Dec 2016 19:03:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wangaj (unknown [219.142.69.75]) by app1 (Coremail) with SMTP id JeBTOgAHDwM5E05YP6xfAA--.22833S2; Mon, 12 Dec 2016 11:02:18 +0800 (CST)
From: Aijun Wang <wangaijun@tsinghua.org.cn>
To: 'Lou Berger' <lberger@labn.net>, 'TEAS WG' <teas@ietf.org>
References: <8f6c128a-4a9d-05bc-3f6d-c0dd0822f844@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <8f6c128a-4a9d-05bc-3f6d-c0dd0822f844@labn.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 11:03:23 +0800
Message-ID: <00d301d25424$4dd97b20$e98c7160$@org.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AdJSNLXbI5rGyIBDS2G/bMtYJZG+EQB5VO4A
Content-Language: zh-cn
X-CM-TRANSID: JeBTOgAHDwM5E05YP6xfAA--.22833S2
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoWxWryUtF1rWrykXF1kZw4fXwb_yoWrWw1rpF W5Wa90kw4DWrn7Kw1rJw1ruw18Ca9Yy3y7KF93t34UAas8Jryvgr1Svw1ruFyUur9xJryF vwsF9r45Aa4avFJanT9S1TB71UUUUUUqnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUUkYb7Iv0xC_Kw4lb4IE77IF4wAFF20E14v26r1j6r4UM7CY07I2 0VC2zVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r1j6r18M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rw A2F7IY1VAKz4vEj48ve4kI8wA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Gr0_Xr1l84ACjcxK6xII jxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Gr0_Cr1l84ACjcxK6I8E87Iv67AKxVW0oVCq3wA2z4x0Y4vEx4 A2jsIEc7CjxVAFwI0_GcCE3s1le2I262IYc4CY6c8Ij28IcVAaY2xG8wAqx4xG64xvF2IE w4CE5I8CrVC2j2WlYx0E2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_Jr4lYx0Ex4A2jsIE14v26r1j6r4UMc vjeVCFs4IE7xkEbVWUJVW8JwACjcxG0xvY0x0EwIxGrwCY02Avz4vE14v_Gr4l42xK82IY c2Ij64vIr41l4I8I3I0E4IkC6x0Yz7v_Jr0_Gr1lx2IqxVAqx4xG67AKxVWUJVWUGwC20s 026x8GjcxK67AKxVWUGVWUWwC2zVAF1VAY17CE14v26r126r1DMIIYrxkI7VAKI48JMIIF 0xvE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_JF4lIxAIcVC0I7IYx2IY6xkF7I0E14v26r1j6r4UMIIF0x vE42xK8VAvwI8IcIk0rVWrZr1j6s0DMIIF0xvEx4A2jsIE14v26r1j6r4UMIIF0xvEx4A2 jsIEc7CjxVAFwI0_Jr0_GrUvcSsGvfC2KfnxnUUI43ZEXa7IU5NJ57UUUUU==
X-CM-SenderInfo: 5zdqwthlmx0qxwvl0wxkxdh0lujou0/
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/8sBTTxLaIC68-pZQ512Og9kFg0Y>
Cc: teas-chairs@ietf.org, 'Dhruv Dhody' <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>, jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com, daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com
Subject: Re: [Teas] IETF97 minutes posted--Regarding "PCE in Native IP network"
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 03:03:44 -0000
Hi, Lou: Thanks for your updated minutes. Here I want to give some responses for the concerned questions about "PCE in Native IP network", which are initiated from different experts. Wish it can clarify some confusion points for this draft and put forward it some steps further. Question 1(from Danielle Ceccarelli): "We already have a solution for Traffic-Engineering in IP networks -- it is called MPLS." [Aijun Wang]: Traditional MPLS technology that is deployed in distributed manner can only do bandwidth reservation via the RSVP signaling protocol, can't meet the application QoS requirement in real time traffic network. The deployment of RSVP protocol is complex and it also brings large burden on the network devices. This is the main reason that the SR(Segment Routing) technology is emerged and popular in recent days. But as I mentioned during the presentation, SR now can only be deployed in MPLS and IPv6 network, and there is no similar solution for Native IP network. The draft "PCE in native IP network" is just to fulfill this aim, that is to say, to find and deploy one end-to-end path in underlying network upon the QoS requirement of application. Question 2(from Jeff Tantsura): " Would like to see better comparison with FlowSpec and BGP based solutions before we proceed" [Aijun Wang]: BGP flowspec should deploy specific policy for every application prefix in every on-path router, but the solution described in "PCE in native IP network" treats edge routers and other on-path routers differently: only the edge routers need to keep the policy for every prefix, the other on-path routers should only keep the policy for specific route to related edge routers, not the specific application prefix. This can relive the burden of on-path routers and has more flexibility and expandability during deployment. Question 3:(About the relationship with PCECC use-case draft)(from Lou and Dhru) [Aijun Wang]: We have described this in the abstract of the draft "PCE in Native IP network" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-teas-pce-native-ip/), as the following: "This document defines the scenario and solution for traffic engineering within Native IP network, using Dual/Multi-BGP session strategy and PCE-based central control architecture. The proposed central mode control solution conforms to the concept that defined in draft [I-D.draft-ietf-teas-pce-control-function], and together with draft [I-D.draft-zhao-teas-pcecc-use-cases], the solution portfolio for traffic engineering in MPLS and Native IP network is almost completed." I also prefer to separate the two drafts in two tracks, one is for PCECC for MPLS network, the other for PCECC for Native IP network. Because after the use case, we should propose the related solution and extension proposal for PCEP. The solution and extension for these two categories use cases seems to have little similar characteristics. The author of these two drafts are overlapping, so we will cooperate with each other to forward these drafts. Do the above explanation make senses for the concerned questions? We are also eager to hear more value suggestions and comments for this scenario and solution. Best Regards. Aijun Wang China Telecom Beijing Research Institute Network R&D and Operation Support Department -----Original Message----- From: teas-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:teas-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger Sent: Friday, December 9, 2016 11:57 PM To: TEAS WG Cc: teas-chairs@ietf.org Subject: [Teas] IETF97 minutes posted All, Thanks to our note takers, we have posted updated minutes. Please review and comment: Latest rev is in etherpad: http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-97-teas *if* you make changes, please discuss them on the list as only discussed changes will be upload to be part of the final meeting record. Thank you, Lou and Pavan _______________________________________________ Teas mailing list Teas@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
- [Teas] IETF97 minutes posted Lou Berger
- Re: [Teas] IETF97 minutes posted--Regarding "PCE … Aijun Wang