Subject: [Pce] New draft on wavelength switched optical networks

From: Greg Bernstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:39:29 -0700

Hi CCAMPer's and PCEr's, we have just published a new draft on the 
"Applicability of GMPLS and PCE to Wavelength Switched Optical 
Networks"  
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bernstein-ccamp-wavelength-switched-00.txt 
.

This draft looks at optical networks that include tunable lasers and 
ROADM (reconfigurable optical add/drop multiplexers) with no or limited 
wavelength conversion capability (these components are defined in the 
draft). 
These limitations lead to the RWA (routing and wavelength assignment) 
problem which is a bit more demanding in terms of input information and 
computation than other constrained path computation problems.  In the 
draft we look at the implications for GMPLS signaling, GMPLS routing, 
and PCE protocols and suggest some potential extensions to better 
accommodate this application.

We'd appreciate feedback/collaboration on (a) overall interest in this 
application, (b) requirements discussions, and (c) solution/extension 
discussions.

Cheers

Greg B.

-- 
===================================================
Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510) 573-2237

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

---

From: "A S Kiran Koushik" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 20:11:46 -0500

Hi pce-team,
We are working on updating the PCE-PCEP-DRAFT-MIB
(PCE communication protocol MIB) with some editorial changes.
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kkoushik-pce-pcep-mib-00.txt

Can some of you kindly review the existing draft and let us know of any
comments/suggestions. That way we can fix them by the deadline.

Also we are planning to request this to be a working group document.
If there are any objections to this, please let us know and we will work 
on fixing them.

Thanks,
Kiran and Emile.

---

From: Meral Shirazipour <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:11:53 -0400

Hi,
   I have a question regarding page 3, section 4:
"The PCEP MIB will contain the following information:
   a. PCEP client configuration and status."

Does the "status" here also represent the previous/ongoing path computation
requests?
I am referring to Section 6.8.  Stateful versus Stateless PCEs in RFC4655; would
the information related to a stateful PCE be stored in the described MIB ?

Best regards,
Meral

---

From: santanu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 23:06:31 +0530

Dear Kiran and Emile,

I have some more questions below:-

Section 8.1 of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-07.txt says: 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-07.txt>

A PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuring the following PCEP
   session parameters on a PCEP peer:

   o  The local keepalive and Deadtimer (i.e. parameters send by the
      PCEP speaker in an Open message),

   o  The maximum acceptable remote keepalive and dead timers
      (i.e.parameters sent by a peer in an Open message),

    o Negotiation enabled or disabled,

   o  If negotiation is allowed, the minimum acceptable Keepalive and
      Deadtimer timers sent by a PCEP peer,

   o  The SyncTimer,

   o  The maximum number of sessions that can be setup

   o  Request timer: amount of time a PCC waits for a reply before
      resending its path computation requests (potentially to an
      alternate PCE).

But, these parameters are not configurable in any of the tables 
mentioned in draft-kkoushik-pce-pcep-mib-00.txt

Section 8.1 also says:

A PCEP implementation SHOULD allow configuring
   a specific PCEP session with a given PCEP peer.  This includes the
   configuration of the following parameters:

   o  The IP address of the PCEP peer,

   o  The PCEP speaker role: PCC, PCE or both,

   o  Whether the PCEP speaker should initiate the PCEP session or wait
      for initiation by the peer,

   o  The PCEP session parameters, as listed above, if they differ from
      the default parameters,

   o  A set of PCEP policies including the type of operations allowed
      for the PCEP peer (e.g. diverse path computation, synchronization,
      etc.)

   A PCEP implementation MUST allow restricting the set of PCEP peers
   that can initiate a PCEP session with the PCEP speaker (e.g. list of
   authorized PCEP peers, all PCEP peers in the area, all PCEP peers in
   the AS).

Do you have any plan to add these parameters in any new/existing table(s) ?

Thanks,
Santanu Mazumder

A S Kiran Koushik wrote:

> If there are any objections to this, please let us know and we will 
> work on fixing them.
>
> Thanks,
> Kiran and Emile.
>

---

From: "A S Kiran Koushik" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:16:02 -0500

Hi Meral,
We have divided the organization of PCE management MIBs
as below:
MIB module               WG draft name
================================================
PCE-DISC-DRAFT-MIB         draft-ietf-pce-disc-mib
 -- PCE discovery MIB.

PCE-PCEP-DRAFT-MIB         draft-ietf-pce-pcep-mib
 -- PCE communication protocol MIB

PCE-PCC-DRAFT-MIB          draft-ietf-pce-pcc-mib
 -- Path Computation Client MIB

PCE-TC-DRAFT-MIB           draft-ietf-pce-tc-mib
 -- PCE Textual conventions MIB.

The information you are referring to below will be contained as a
part of draft-ietf-pce-pcc-mib which is yet to be started.

Regards,
Kiran.

---

From: "A S Kiran Koushik" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:36:42 -0500

Hi Santanu,
Yes, we have plans to update the MIB with the below configurable
parameters in its next version.

Regards,
Kiran.