Hi Julien, all. Good topic.
When we starting to work on the H-PCE architecture (draft-king-pce-hierarchy-fwk-xx) it was in response to perceived scaling concerns of BRPC, if the sequence of domains was not pre-defined. Our view is that solving the domain routing problem for as few as six interconnected domains could be really hard if BRPC is used without a pre-defined domain sequence. So, I think our I-D is within the current WG charter. I'd actually go a step further and say that our I-D is not aimed at a larger set of domains at this stage. Lastly, I do welcome the WG discussing extending the scope of the charter. Perhaps it may be worth defining what we mean by a "larger groups of domains", it's certainly >2 and <Internet. Would up to 20 domains be a good reference point when defining/discussing a large group of domains? Br, Dan. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: 03 November 2009 16:49 To: [email protected] Subject: [Pce] Charter and Multi-Domain Hi PCE members. As you may (SHOULD ;-) ) have noticed in our agenda for Hiroshima, Daniel King will present his I-D named "The Application of the PCE Architecture to the Determination of a Sequence of Domains in MPLS & GMPLS" (introduced during the Stockholm meeting). Nonetheless our current charter soberly says: "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." In other words, we are flirting with our charter border and the scope of some drafts depends on it. In this context, the chairs would like to get a feedback from the WG on evolving towards larger groups of domains. Does the WG think we are now ready to follow this path? Do you have operational requirements and/or concerns in mind in terms of applicability, order of magnitude, implementation...? Comments are very welcome. You are probably aware that we have passed over a milestone about rechartering: beyond the upcoming meeting, your feedback will be useful input for the envisioned charter update (targetted for the end of the year). Many thanks JP & Julien _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
