On 7/20/2017 5:22 PM, Jonathan Hardwick wrote:
1.We have not had an explicit discussion in the PCE WG about whether
we want to take PCEP in this direction. We have had a few lively
debates on specific cases, like PCEP-LS, but those cases represent the
“thin end of the wedge”. If we start down this path then we are
accepting that PCEP will replace the functions available in the
traditional control plane. We need to test whether there is a
consensus in the working group to move in that direction.
This email is to initiate the discussion (1). So, please reply to the
mailing list and share your thoughts on whether PCEP should be
extended in this direction, and how far we should go.
Hi all,
Just my two cents, trying not to elaborate too much. In short, my answer
is yes.
The main disclaimer is that it is a view from a research/experimental
perspective. I am aware of the functional implications, separation of
concerns, functions, etc. and in previous meetings we have had several
(heated :) discussions on this.
We have a (proprietary) implementation which, in the last years, has
morphed/grown into the likes of an SDN controller e.g., an optical SDN
controller for fixed and flexi-grid networks. It can be deployed
directly over a GMPLS control plane or in PCECC mode. We have running
implementations of PCEP-LS, PCE-CC and an ACTN proof-of-concept for
multi-domain flexi-grid networks (base on active, stateful, hierarchical
PCE).
The main driver/motivation has been convenience, in a clearly
evolutionary approach (adding two wheels and an engine to the bicycle to
make it a car). We have been influenced by SDN/Centralized control
concepts. In most cases we needed to implement a message exchange and
PCEP (beyond its original intent) provided such length-delimited
reliable message exchange between entities. We have implemented BGP-LS
but I see no reason why PCEP cannot be extended for the same (PCEP-LS)
being almost functionally equivalent. We also had a modified OpenFlow
for optical networks as SBI, (pre-ONF work adapting CFLOW_MOD) but
PCE-CC also allows us to program roughly the same equivalent
cross-connects. Having a single unified framework (PCEP) is very useful
for robustness, avoid code duplication, etc., along with unified session
management, parsers, tests, etc.
IMHO, with the stateful PCE work we already went beyond the basic path
computation service.
Best regards
Ramon
--
Ramon Casellas, Ph.D. -- Senior Researcher -- Networks Division
Optical Networks and Systems Department -- http://www.cttc.es/people/rcasellas/
CTTC - Centre Tecnològic de Telecomunicacions de Catalunya
Parc Mediterrani de la Tecnologia (PMT) - Edifici B4
Av. Carl Friedrich Gauss, 7 - 08860 Castelldefels (Barcelona) - Spain
Tel.: +34 93 645 29 00 ext 2168 -- Fax. +34 93 645 29 01
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
