A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based Architecture
draft-ietf-pce-architecture-05
Yes
(Alex Zinin)
(Ross Callon)
No Objection
(Allison Mankin)
(Bill Fenner)
(Cullen Jennings)
(Lars Eggert)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Margaret Cullen)
(Mark Townsley)
(Russ Housley)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
Alex Zinin Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Ross Callon Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Allison Mankin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Bill Fenner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Brian Carpenter Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2006-03-15)
Unknown
I'm slightly surprised that this has only one rather casual mention of the word "loop". I'd have expected some discussion of loop avoidance. Similarly, the assumption that QoS enters into path computation seems very casual given the history of QoS-based routing.
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
(was No Record, Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2006-04-24)
Unknown
I cleared my DISCUSS as most of the issues I raised were addressed. There is one editorial issue left that is not worth more than a COMMENT, yet I would be glad to see it fixed or hear an explanation. Section 9 lists Manageability Considerations in sub-sections 9.1 to 9.6, and then includes the follwoing: 9.7. Other Considerations No other management considerations have been identified. Why this?
David Kessens Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2006-03-16)
Unknown
I received the following comments by Pekka Savola from the OPS directorate that you might want to consider: (Note: we don't run MPLS or GMPLS TE networks so review from someone who does woudln't hurt..) I read the draft and thought it was reasonably clear and easy to read. There seemed to be a couple of internal inconsistancies (section x said "foo", section y said "foo and bar") but nothing major. I think the doc could easily be wrapped up in a month with one revision. semi-substantial ---------------- 4.4. Node Outside the Routing Domain An LER might not be part of the routing domain for administrative reasons (for example, a customer-edge (CE) router connected to the provider-edge (PE) router in the context of MPLS VPN [RFC2547] and for which it is desired to provide a CE to CE TE LSP path). This scenario suggests a solution that does not involve doing computation on the ingress (TE LSP head-end) router, and that does not rely on static loose hops configuration in which case optimal shortest paths could not be achieved. A distinct PCE-based solution can help here. Note that the PCE in this case may, itself, provide a path that includes loose hops. ==> I'm not sure how relevant this scenario really is. If you don't rely on external equipment (e.g., CE's, maybe under the customer control or not) to participate in the routing domain for administrative reasons, why could you rely on them doing TE decisions? (which could hurt ISP's own TE decisions..) In any case, such nodes basically just have a default route to the ISP, so I'm not sure why they need to participate in TE at all.. Conversely, stateless PCEs do not have to remember any computed path and each set of request(s) is processed independently of each other. For example, stateless PCEs may compute paths based on current TED information, which could be out of sync with actual network state given other recent PCE-computed paths changes. ==> do you assume that if a PCE computes a path, it will actually automatically get used? The last sentence seems to imply that. (But text further in the draft doesn't seem to assume that.) The router could just also very well discard it. The path computations made to PCC's seem irrelevant, as the PCEs should use solely TED to get info about path changes. (This might imply that you might need to wait until TED has been updated between each PCE computation to know if it was activated or not...) editorial --------- 4.8 Path Selection Policy ===> it might have been useful to briefly also mention the policy synchronization here, because if you have multiple PCE's, that's pretty important; whether that needs to be done out-of-band or using e.g., PCE-PCE protocols remains to be seen. 5.3. Multiple PCE Path Computation Figure 3 illustrates how multiple PCE path computations may be performed along the path of a signaled service. As in the previous example, the head-end PCC makes a request to an external PCE, but the path that is returned is such that the next network element finds it necessary to perform further computation. This may be the case when the path returned is a partial path that does not reach the intended destination or when the computed path is loose. [...] ==> in section 5 or 6, you don't describe the scenario at all where PCC sends in a request to a PCE, which fails to provide a reply or replies in such a manner (e.g., the first hop is loose) that the PCC needs to contact another PCE for better path information. On the other hand, the second bullet in Section 7 seems to imply this is also possible. Is this an intentional omission or should that scenario also be mentioned here? (AFAICS, your the two cases addressed here are: 1) contact PCE, get enough information to forward packets to the next hop, let that contact the same or some other PCE, and 2) contact PCE, and assume inter-PCE communication to sort it out.) 6.6. PCC-PCE & PCE-PCE Communication ==> you don't include any requirements on how the communication needs to be 1) secured (well, later in section 6.10 you have some but PCE-PCE or PCC-PCE IMHO belong here; note that you'll probably want more than just confidentiality, e.g., integrity), or 2) what kind of requirements there are for communication (e.g., how fast should you notice if the communication doesn't form? or dies in the middle?) [I note that some of this is under 6.5] 9.7. Other Considerations No other management considerations arise. ==> hmm.. shouldn't you rather say, "No other management considerations have been identified." ? :-)
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2006-03-29)
Unknown
Typo in Section 5.6: s/extening/extending/
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2006-03-26)
Unknown
Please spell out all usage of acronyms in their first usage. Some example of this is ASON, NMS and IGP.
Margaret Cullen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown