Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 06:12:16 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Standard Representation Of Domain Sequence
	Author(s)       : Dhruv Dhody
                          Udayasree Palle
                          Ramon Casellas
	Filename        : draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-01.txt
	Pages           : 31
	Date            : 2012-07-05

Abstract:
   The ability to compute shortest constrained Traffic Engineering Label
   Switched Paths (TE LSPs) in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and
   Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks across multiple domains has been
   identified as a key requirement for P2P and P2MP scenarios.  In this
   context, a domain is a collection of network elements within a common
   sphere of address management or path computational responsibility
   such as an IGP area or an Autonomous Systems.  This document
   specifies a standard representation and encoding of a domain
   sequence, which is defined as an ordered sequence of domains
   traversed to reach the destination domain.  This document also
   defines new sub-objects to be used to encode domain identifiers.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-01

A diff from previous version is available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-01

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Dhruv Dhody <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2012 10:56:29 +0530

Dear WG,

We have updated the domain-sequence draft 
'draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-01'

The main changes are - 
(1) Documenting two mechanism for encoding of the domain-sequence
sub-objects 
    in IRO
      - a New IRO Type: With new processing rules like order, Loose/Strict, 
        unknown sub-objects etc
      - Use of IRO Type 1(RFC 5440): New sub-objects encoding in the IRO,
with 
        no inherent order and existing processing rules. 

(2) Section on use of the sub-objects in XRO, ERO, EXRS. 

(3) Manageability, Security and IANA considerations

(4) Comments and suggestions from Adrian's Mails 
    [http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pce/current/msg02782.html]	
      - Added both options for IRO in the draft
      - Clarified the encoding of sub-objects and the difference with TLVs 
      - Loose handling for the new IRO type
      - Mode of operations
      - Unknown sub-object handling v/s constraints not met
      - Relationship with PCE Sequence 
 
*******
Poll:
******* 
We would like to get the feedback from the WG on the domain-sequence in IRO 
(please refer section 3.3.2.1)

(a) New IRO Type: 
    - is an ordered list
    - Allow Loose and Strict ( which is ignored for IRO type 1)
    - Separation of Scope
    (a.1): New IRO Type to denote domain-sequence only and Old IRO type 
           used for intra-domain [PCReq rules changes to allow <IRO-List>]
    (a.2): New IRO Type to include both intra nodes and inter-domains 
           nodes but the order of domain (as & area) is strict. (non-
           ordered intra-domain nodes can exist) (Basically a new IRO type 
           with defined rules for domain sequence ordering)

(b) Old IRO Type 1: 
    - Status Quo with only addition of sub-objects and no processing rules 
      changed (unknown sub-object handling etc)
    - No strict Order (PCE must find the sequence on its own) but at the
same 
      time in case of doubt, or when doable, PCE can apply the ordering as 
      specified in IRO. 
    - Coexistence of intra domain nodes, boundary nodes and abstract domain 
      nodes in the same IRO List 

So the question is, should we define a new IRO type to be used in inter- 
domain scenarios to denote domain-sequence. 
(a.1) New IRO Type with domain-sequence sub-objects only 
or (a.2) New IRO Type with mix of intra and inter nodes, strict ordering  
for inter-domain nodes only
or 
the focus of the draft should only be to (b) define new sub-objects with
text 
clarifying the handling and processing rules to cover inter-domain cases. 

We would like to get feedback from the WG with clarifying text and try to
get consensus during the next IETF WG meet.

Thanks!!  

Best Regards,
Authors

********************************************************************
Dhruv Dhody, System Architect, Huawei Technologies, Bangalore, India 
Ph. +91-9845062422

This e-mail and attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI,
which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed
above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including,
but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or
dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient's) is
prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by
phone or email immediately and delete it! 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 6:42 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-01.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element Working Group of
the IETF.

Abstract:

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce