Hi Gyan, I support this experimental work. If a router communicates with PCE over PCEP for path computation purpose, it might as well propagate topology via PCEP eliminating the need for another protocol for that purpose. The lesser the number of protocols, the better for simplifying network operation.
Thanks, Siva On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 2:43 AM Gyan Mishra <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear PCE WG, > > > We presented the PCEP-LS [1] I-D [2] in the IETF 110 with a quick recap > and a summary of past discussions. Some new scenarios such as PCECC, H-PCE > were highlighted where the PCEP session could be reused. > > > This is an experimental I-D with the aim to progress research and > development efforts. This work is not a replacement for any of the existing > mechanisms. There are specific scenarios highlighted where the reuse of > PCEP sessions for this information is deemed useful. To make progress, it > may not be useful to rehash the beauty context between everyone's favorite > protocol :). What would be useful would be - finding out if there is still > interest in this experimental work by some in the WG; are there strong > technical objections for the experiment in its limited scope etc... > > > As a next step, it would be good to define the scope of the experiments > and expected output especially targeting the scalability concerns as well > as impact in other protocols and the network, etc. > > > From the last query on this draft March 18th we received positive feedback > from Aijun Wang with China Telecom mentioned that as a telco are interest > in deploying in their network PCEP-LS once the Huawei implementation is > ready. Aijun pointed out in the thread that using this draft simplifies > the implementation of SDN controller. One question asked by Aijun was > related to section 9.2.1 LS Capability TLV R=1 remote allowed meaning > hybrid mode to provide flexibility for operators not yet using SDN > (SDN-like) SBI. For any operators already using PCEP as SDN (SDN-like) > SBI, a direct PCEP session already exist between all the nodes in the > network and the PCE which would be the PCECV SDN scenario in which case the > R flag in the open message is set to 0. > > > We also received positive feedback from Peter Park with telco KT regarding > interest in PCEP-LS. > > > We also had feedback from Bin as they have implemented PCEP and have > interest in this experimental implementation of this work. > > > I would like to poll the WG again for interest in progressing research and > development efforts of this draft as experimental. > > > As stated in the last WG poll, I would like get feedback from the WG on > scope of experiments especially related to scalability concerns and impact > to other protocols on the network. > > > Thanks! > > Gyan (on behalf of co-authors) > > > [1] > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/110/materials/slides-110-pce-42-pcep-ls-00.pdf > > [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls/ > > == > > > <http://www.verizon.com/> > > *Gyan Mishra* > > *Network Solutions Architect * > > *Email [email protected] <[email protected]>* > > *M 301 502-1347* > > -- > > <http://www.verizon.com/> > > *Gyan Mishra* > > *Network Solutions A**rchitect * > > *Email [email protected] <[email protected]>* > > > > *M 301 502-1347* > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
