Performance Analysis of Inter-Domain Path Computation Methodologies
RFC 5468

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>,
    RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
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.