Re: [Teas] A New I-D on PCE as a central controller

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

Hello again, Michael, it seems to be my day for replying to your emails.

> When reading about uses cases such as L3VPN service delivery in "Section
3.2.3",
> what is the author's view on the line of demarcation between NETCONF and
> PCEP?

Well, I wonder which interface you're talking about.
The ones that out in here are:
- the interface between customer and operator
- the interface between "service orchestrator" and "network orchestrator"

The former of these is like the interface used in L3SM. As co-chair of L3SM, you
might not be surprised to hear that my view is that NETCONF is a fine solution -
well, the use of a YANG data model, in any case.

The latter is the interface between "Orchestrator / Service Manager / OSS / NMS"
and "PCE-based Controller" as shown on the various figures in the picture. We
haven't discussed this interface in the document, and perhaps we should.

If you look at Figure 6 (with the hierarchy of controllers) you might observe
that the parent controller could be implemented to act as though it is talking
to an NE (in the abstract node model) and that means that the southbound
interface of the parent controller would be PCEP. That means (of course) that
the northbound interface of the child controller would also be PCEP. Then, it
might seem obvious that we would want all PCE implementations to behave the same
way and so that makes the northbound interface of the parent PCE
would/could/should/might also be PCEP.

What do you think?

Thanks,
Adrian