Subject: Fwd: [Pce] WG Action: Path Computation Element (pce)

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:32:12 -0800

FYI.
-- 
Alex
http://www.psg.com/~zinin

This is a forwarded message
From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Wednesday, January 12, 2005, 12:39:31 PM
Subject: [Pce] WG Action: Path Computation Element (pce)

===8<==============Original message text===============
A new IETF working group has been formed in the Routing Area. For additional 
information, please contact the Area Directors or the WG Chairs.

Path Computation Element (pce)
================================

Current Status: Active Working Group

Chair(s):
Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>
JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>

Routing Area Director(s):
Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>

Routing Area Advisor:
Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>

Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: [email-masked]
To Subscribe: [email-masked]
In Body: subscribe pce
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pce/

Description of Working Group:

The PCE Working Group is chartered to specify a Path Computation Element (PCE)
based architecture for the computation of paths for MPLS and GMPLS Traffic
Engineering LSPs.

In this architecture path computation does not occur on the head-end (ingress)
LSR, but on some other path computation entity that may physically not be
located on the head-end LSR.

The PCE WG will work on application of this model within a single domain
or within a small group of domains (where a domain is a layer, IGP area
or Autonomous System with limited visibility from the head-end LSR).
At this time, applying this model to large groups of domains such as the
Internet is not thought to be possible, and the PCE WG will not spend
energy on that topic.

The WG will specify a protocol for communication between LSRs (termed Path
Computation Clients - PCCs) and PCEs, and between cooperating PCEs. This
protocol will be capable of representing requests for path computation
including a full set of constraints, will be able to return multiple paths, and
will include security mechanisms such as authentication and confidentiality.

The WG will determine requirements for extensions to existing routing and
signaling protocols in support of PCE discovery and signaling of inter-domain
paths. Candidate protocols for extensions are RSVP-TE, OSPF-TE, ISIS-TE and
BGP. Any necessary extensions will be produced in collaboration with the
Working Groups responsible for the protocols.

The Working Group will also work on the definition of metrics to
evaluate path quality, scalability, responsiveness and robustness of
path computation models.

Work Items:

- Functional specification of MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineered LSP path
computation models involving Path Computation Element(s). This
includes the case of computing the paths of intra and inter-domain
TE LSPs. Such path computation includes the generation of primary,
protection and recovery paths, as well as computations for (local/global)
reoptimization and load balancing. The WG will address the inter-area
(single IGP domain) scenario first. WG progress will be evaluated before
inter-AS related work is started.

- Specification of the PCE-based architecture.

- Specification of requirements and protocol extensions related to
the policy, and security aspects of PCE-based path computation involving
PCEs of multiple administrative entities.

- In cooperation with protocol specific Working Group (OSPF, ISIS, IDR,
MPLS, CCAMP), development of routing (OSPF, ISIS, BGP) and LSP
signaling (RSVP-TE) extensions required to support PCE-based path
computation models.

- Specification of techniques in support of PCE discovery within and
across domains. Where such techniques result in the extensions of
existing protocols (e.g., OSPF, ISIS or BGP), this work will be done in
conjunction with the appropriate WGs.

- Specification of a new communication protocol for use between a PCC
and a PCE, and between PCEs. A single protocol will be selected from
among candidates that include the existing protocols defined in other
WGs.

- Definition of objective metrics to evaluate various criteria such as
the measurement of path quality, response time, robustness and
scalability of path computation models.

Review of the document "Requirements for path computation element in
GMPLS inter-domain networks" produced by the CCAMP WG.

Goals and Milestones:

Feb 05: Submit first draft of PCE architecture document

Feb 05: Submit first draft of PCE discovery requirements and protocol
extensions documents

Apr 05: Submit first draft of the PCE communication protocol
requirements

May 05: Submit first draft of the definition of objective metrics

Jul 05: Submit first draft of the PCE communication protocol
specification

Aug 05: Submit PCE architecture specification to the IESG to be
considered as Informational RFC

Nov 05: Submit first draft of applicability statement (describing the processes
and procedures for the use of the PCE architecture, protocols
and protocol extensions for inter-area MPLS and GMPLS Traffic
Engineering)

Nov 05: Submit first draft of the MIB module for the PCE protocol

Dec 05: Submit PCE communication protocol requirements to the IESG to be
considered as an Informational RFC

Dec 05: Submit PCE discovery protocol extensions specifications to the
IESG to be considered as a Proposed Standard

Dec 05: Submit PCE communication protocol specification to the IESG to
be considered as a Proposed Standard

Feb 06: Submit the applicability and metrics documents to the IESG to be
considered as Informational RFC

Feb 06: Evaluate WG progress, recharter or close.

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

===8<===========End of original message text===========

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