IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll draft-zhao-teas-pce-control-function

"Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE)" <michael.scharf@nokia.com> Fri, 30 September 2016 13:21 UTC

Return-Path: <michael.scharf@nokia.com>
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 2951712B116 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 06:21:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.921
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.921 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-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 r1iXMNIARGT6 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 06:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6BBE12B0FB for <teas@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 06:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fr712umx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.245.210.45]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 4E387ED2B39D7; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 13:21:25 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.42]) by fr712umx4.dmz.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO-o) with ESMTP id u8UDLRr3004780 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 30 Sep 2016 13:21:27 GMT
Received: from FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.111]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id u8UDLKll011775 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 30 Sep 2016 15:21:26 +0200
Received: from FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.7.135]) by FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.111]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Fri, 30 Sep 2016 15:21:24 +0200
From: "Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE)" <michael.scharf@nokia.com>
To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, 'Igor Bryskin' <Igor.Bryskin@huawei.com>
Thread-Topic: [Teas] WG adoption poll draft-zhao-teas-pce-control-function
Thread-Index: AQHR+MsdeahL2I+PW0CEZwKoDr4uMgK1IXSeAVdjs3KhAtyYUP9vAdQw///jRwCAACH1MA==
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 13:21:23 +0000
Message-ID: <655C07320163294895BBADA28372AF5D48AC95EF@FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <b2134da4-a438-0462-b7b2-ccb5a6d7a858@labn.net> <000efdef-b3b1-56d5-80db-1193a3026105@labn.net> <0C72C38E7EBC34499E8A9E7DD007863908EFCBC3@dfweml501-mbx> <09ea01d21b18$1149f3f0$33dddbd0$@olddog.co.uk> <655C07320163294895BBADA28372AF5D48AC9527@FR712WXCHMBA15.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <09f101d21b1c$8088d110$819a7330$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <09f101d21b1c$8088d110$819a7330$@olddog.co.uk>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.39]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/BgNA9f2VaI6x8i11J5iH6XVSXwU>
Cc: 'TEAS WG' <teas@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Teas] WG adoption poll draft-zhao-teas-pce-control-function
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: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 13:21:34 -0000

I see lots of enthusiasm to implement PCEP towards routers. Of course, this is only one interface in real carrier SDN architecture.

Thanks

Michael


-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk] 
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 3:14 PM
To: Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE) <michael.scharf@nokia.com>; 'Igor Bryskin' <Igor.Bryskin@huawei.com>
Cc: 'TEAS WG' <teas@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [Teas] WG adoption poll draft-zhao-teas-pce-control-function

> > I suppose we have to choose. At the time of writing, no-one had 
> > seriously proposed using PCEP on that interface. I suppose we would 
> > only consider that if there is enthusiasm to implement. Do you want to?
> >
> > But look at Figure 6.
> 
> I am not aware of any enthusiasm to implement PCEP on some interfaces 
> shown in Figure 6.

I suspect you a referring to some specific interfaces rather than all interfaces in Fig 6.
But which i/fs are you concerned about?
Does this mean that you don't believe there is support for H-PCE as (discussed in RFC 6805), or that you don't think PCEs should talk to NEs (as discussed in RFC 5440)? 
Or are you talking about the "NBI" between orchestrator and PCE-based controller?

If you mean this last point then I will step back and let anyone who likes the idea speak up.

Cheers,
Adrian
--
Support an author and your imagination.
Tales from the Wood - Eighteen new fairy tales.
More Tales from the Wood - Eighteen MORE new fairy tales.
https://www.feedaread.com/profiles/8604/
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tales-Wood-Adrian-Farrel/dp/1786100924
Or buy from me direct.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email