Dear Daniel, I read this draft and I was interested in Section 3.1 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-00#section-3.1).
The current text makes no assumption whether administrative setup is needed before sending any request to reserve some inter-domain resources. FWIW, we have edited in the past this document: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-pce-interas-01. Two types of agreements are needed for such model: (1) between adjacent domains and (2) between the entities managing the end ASes which will terminate LSPs. This document uses COPS to put into effect computed inter-domain LSPs. The document proposes also: a solution to discover a remote AS is supporting the PCE service, a solution to avoid advertising the IP addresses of routers which are candidate to be tail/head end of an inter-domain LSP, etc. A demo of the full system can be found here: http://www.ist-mescal.org/roadmap/pcs-demo.avi Since 2005 (at the edited that document), there are several advances. It would be valuable to explain what is the added value of the i2rs approach for this use case compared to what was proposed in the document cited above. Cheers, Med >-----Message d'origine----- >De : [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] De >la part de Daniel King >Envoyé : dimanche 2 décembre 2012 00:03 >À : [email protected] >Cc : [email protected]; [email protected] >Objet : [i2rs] A new draft on an architecture for >application-based network operations > >Dear i2rs, > >Adrian and I posted an I-D which is a rather grandiose attempt to pull >together a number of existing architectural components (PCE, >VNTM, I2RS, >policy, etc., etc.). This is a sort of meta-SDN PCE-based >architect-thingy. >It needed a name, so we called it Application-Based Network Operations >(ABNO), warning it's not house trained and may answer to various other >names: > >A PCE-based Architecture for Application-based Network Operations >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrkingel-pce-abno-architecture-00 > >As some of you will know this is the result of numerous >discussions we have >had with a number of people over the last three months. Where >pieces of the >puzzle seem to have been coagulating, we thought it might be >nice to build a >framework in which the jelly (jello) can set. It is at a >really early stage, >so we are convinced you will all throw stuff at us, but what the hell! > >As it stands, the current draft includes: > >- A brief description of abstraction functional components and the >interfaces between them. >- An attempt to supply pointers to existing work (tool kit) >where that may >be applicable and there are some use case examples to give a >feel for how it >all works. >- Various ABNO use cases. > >A number of areas need further discussion, especially the use cases. We >decided to submit with the few we do have, in order to generate some >feedback - anyone who wants to supply use case(s) and text, >would receive >hero status. > >We have pitched the document as a PCE working group document >because PCE is >a central component, but the document doesn't really fall >inside the PCE >charter. For the time being it might be best to send comments >direct to us >rather than clutter up any WG mailing list with discussions >that are outside >the charter (but if some WG chair wants to claim the work, then...) > >Thanks, >Dan and Adrian > >_______________________________________________ >i2rs mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs > _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
