Received. Uploaded as BBF2015.1183.00. Thx. Regards, Mike
On Nov 16, 2015, at 8:10 AM, Daniele Ceccarelli <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hello, The TEAS, PCE and CCAMP Working Groups would like to thank the Broadband Forum for informing us of your effort on packet-optical networks, and providing the IETF with the opportunity to review and comment on your document and its use of our RFCs. We have conducted an initial review where we noted the references to IETF RFCs on GMPLS and PCE for satisfying the control requirements. Below is some preliminary feedback based on this initial review we hope you will find helpful and consider for the document. However, given the recent IETF 94 meeting activity, we regret there was little time to conduct a thorough technical review of the document. We understand the document is in the last call stage of development. If time and the BBF process allows, the CCAMP, PCE and TEAS Working Groups would be happy to conduct a more in depth technical review over the coming weeks. Please let us know if you wish us to proceed with such a review. As the Broadband Forum progresses its work on "Achieving Packet Network Optimization using DWDM Interfaces", we would greatly appreciate if you keep us informed of any gaps you identify in the RFCs that are needed to satisfy these requirements. Feedback from the BBF on existing and progressing CCAMP, PCE and TEAS work would be greatly appreciated and can be provided via the relevant IETF Working Group mailing list without the need for a formal liaison. We look forward to your response and our continued communication on this important area of optical networking. Best Regards, Daniele Ceccarelli & Fatai Zhang - CCAMP Working Group Chairs Jonathan Hardwick, Julien Meuric & Jean-Philippe Vasseur - PCE Working Group Chairs Vishnu Pavan Beeram & Lou Berger - TEAS Working Group Chairs --------------------------- Preliminary Feedback --------------------------- Questions: • In A.2.1, how is the GMPLS communication between the Packet Node and the DWDM Network Element achieved? Is there a specific control interface that is used in your solution? There are a number of possibilities for control channel connectivity available. Perhaps clarifying which are intended would aid understanding and interoperability. • Are there more details on the management and SDN control aspects between the packet network and the optical network? Additional management and SDN control detail might convey a better understanding of the solution configuration and its operation. Comments: • When referring to PCE and related issues, e.g., in [R-26] and [R-27], it seems only stateless PCE (RFC4655) and corresponding PCEP (RFC5440) are included in the current solution. The PCE Working Group is investigating stateful PCE and PCE Initiated LSPs, which are planned to be published in the future. It may be worth specifying which kind of PCE is suggested to be used in the current solution, to differentiate the two. Has RFC 5623 - PCE-based inter-layer MPLS and GMPLS Traffic Engineering been considered? It may be a good reference for this solution. • In section 4.4 when talking about SDN, Openflow is mentioned as a standard protocol to interact between packet nodes and DWDM nodes. PCE Protocol (PCEP) could be considered as another example, as it is currently used in IETF. RFC 3413 about SNMP, and RFC 4208 about GMPLS UNI are also recommended references. • In section 4.5, [R-36] uses the term "North-Bound interface" to refer to the interface between Network Elements and the SDN controller. We noted that some commonly use the same term when referring to the interface between the controller and what sits "above" the controller (e.g. another controller or orchestrator). This could lead to unintended misunderstanding. Perhaps a clarification would help avoid misunderstanding. From: David Sinicrope Sent: venerdì 16 ottobre 2015 19:22 To: Alia Atlas, Routing Area Director,; Deborah Brungard, Routing Area Director; Alvaro Retana, Routing Area Director; Daniele Ceccarelli; Fatai Zhang, CCAMP Co-Chair; Vishnu Pavan Beeram, TEAS Co-Chair; Lou Berger, TEAS Co-Chair; IETF Statements, Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Robin Mersh, Broadband Forum CEO; Gabrielle Bingham, Broadband Forum Secretariat; David Sinicrope; Drew Rexrode II, BBF Routing and Transport Area Director; Oscar Gonzalez de Dios, CCAMP Secretary; Matt Hartley, TEAS Secretary; Dean Cheng, Packet Optical Evolution Project Stream Lead Subject: Broadband Forum Liaison: Achieving Packet Network Optimization using DWDM Interfaces Hi All, Please find attached a liaison from the Broadband Forum and its associated attachments. Please let me know if you have trouble receiving or opening the liaison. Best Regards, Dave Sinicrope IETF-BBF Liaison Manager This communication is the property of CenturyLink and may contain confidential or privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the communication and any attachments.
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
