Performance Analysis of Inter-Domain Path Computation Methodologies
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: IETF-Announce <email@example.com> Cc: Internet Architecture Board <firstname.lastname@example.org>, RFC Editor <email@example.com> Subject: Document Action: 'Performance Analysis of Inter-Domain Path Computation Methodologies' to Informational RFC The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Performance Analysis of Inter-Domain Path Computation Methodologies ' <draft-dasgupta-ccamp-path-comp-analysis-02.txt> as an Informational RFC This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an IETF Working Group. The IESG contact person is Ross Callon. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dasgupta-ccamp-path-comp-analysis-02.txt
Technical Summary This document presents a performance comparison between the per- domain path computation method and the Path Computation Element (PCE) Architecture based Backward Recursive Path Computation (BRPC) procedure. Metrics to capture the significant performance aspects are identified and detailed simulations are carried out on realistic scenarios. A performance analysis for each of the path computation methods is then undertaken. This may be thought of as *a* comparison that tried to capture some metrics. There is no attempt to draw a hard conclusion on which method to use Working Group Summary This purely informational document is an individual submission with AD sponsorship since it is not in the charter of either of the two most closely related WGs (CCAMP and PCE). However, the CCAMP and PCE working groups have been asked for comments, the document was updated based on comments received in CCAMP, and the IETF last call was forwarded to the CCAMP and PCE WGs to solicit their comments. Document Quality This document does not specify anything that would be implemented. The approaches that it is comparing are implemented and at least the MPLS-TE approach is widely deployed. Personnel Ross Callon is the AD sponsoring this individual submission. RFC Editor Note The section "Requirements Language" that introduces the standard key words ("MUST", "MUST NOT", and so on) can be dropped, since the document does not use these key words. Spelling "virutal" in section 2 should be "virtual"; "Eventhough" in section 4 should be "Even though". Section 2 (Introduction). Please add the following paragraph to the end of this section: Note that this document contains multiple figures that are only available in the pdf version. Please delete both ietf-ccamp-lsp-stitching and ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te from the informative references. Please update the reference to draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-pd- path-comp to instead reference RFC 5152. Please update the reference to draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain- rsvp-te to instead reference RFC 5151. Please update the reference to draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-stitching to instead reference RFC 5150. Please update the reference to RFC 3784 to RFC 5305.