.com>; Robert Varga <n...@hq.sk>
Cc: pce@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] PCEP as an SDN controller protocol?
Excellent question, John. Wonder myself. Let's ask Gert. He is very good at
defining thibgs they are not :-)
Yours also irresoectively,
igor
Sent from
rg; pce-cha...@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Pce] PCEP as an SDN controller protocol?
>
> Hi Robert, Thomas,
>
> See inline...
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnad...@lucidvision.com]
> > Sent: 08 August 2017 05:09
> >
<n...@hq.sk>
> Cc: pce@ietf.org; pce-cha...@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Pce] PCEP as an SDN controller protocol?
>
> Hi Robert, Thomas,
>
> See inline...
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:tnad...@lucidvision.com]
> > Sent
cha...@ietf.org>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Pce] PCEP as an SDN controller protocol?
> On Aug 7, 2017:7:13 PM, at 7:13 PM, Robert Varga <n...@hq.sk> wrote:
>
> On 07/08/17 13:10, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
>> Hi Oliver,
&
jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com>; pce@ietf.org
>> *Cc:* pce-cha...@ietf.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [Pce] PCEP as an SDN controller protocol?
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Jon,
>>
>> Thanks to open this thread. As many of you have already said, PCEP is
>&g
om:*Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of
> *olivier.dug...@orange.com
> *Sent:* 27 July 2017 23:42
> *To:* Jonathan Hardwick <jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com>; pce@ietf.org
> *Cc:* pce-cha...@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Pce] PCEP as an SDN controller protocol?
>
Hi,
One overall clarification -
The notion that PCEP extensions replaces other protocol is not the right way to
look at the issue here. It should be looked at in complementary terms *only*.
There are some other points that some have made on the overarching principle.
Let me try to summarize
23:42
To: Jonathan Hardwick <jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com>; pce@ietf.org
Cc: pce-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] PCEP as an SDN controller protocol?
Hi Jon,
Thanks to open this thread. As many of you have already said, PCEP is already
an SDN controller protocol since the work on st
Olivier,
Very cogently argued
Yours Irrespectively,
John
From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of olivier.dug...@orange.com
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 2:12 PM
To: Jonathan Hardwick <jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com>; pce@ietf.org
Cc: pce-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce
Hi Jon,
Thanks to open this thread. As many of you have already said, PCEP is already
an SDN controller protocol since the work on stateful mode. But, IMHO, recent
drafts doesn't go into the right direction. Let me explain:
1/ On PCE-LS. Of course there is already plenty of solution to learn
w of information.
Regards,
Young
From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 5:59 AM
To: 'Daniele Ceccarelli' <daniele.ceccare...@ericsson.com>; 'Julien Meuric'
<julien.meu...@orange.com>; pce@ietf.org
Cc: pce-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: R
e-cha...@ietf.org" <pce-cha...@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Pce] PCEP as an SDN controller protocol?
+1,
PCEP is rather efficient at dealing with paths and constraints.
PCE-CC , as someone mentioned earlier, can be seen as 1-hop LSPs, there could
be minimum protocol extensions.
+1,
PCEP is rather efficient at dealing with paths and constraints.
PCE-CC , as someone mentioned earlier, can be seen as 1-hop LSPs, there
could be minimum protocol extensions.
PCEP-LS is redoing links-state flooding over PCEP, using the same elements
as existing protocols. This sounds OK as an
PCEP-LS looks to me like an experiment.
For IP, the value proposition of PCEP-LS compared to e.g. BGP-LS is unclear to
me.
For optical nodes, I think an NMS or controller can deal with this without
requiring PCEP-LS, e.g., using NETCONF.
For communication between controllers, typical use
Hi Dhruv ,
Never said to stop work on PCEP, but in the mail below the intention is to
extend protocol in order to be capable to replace other protocol that already
deal with specific functionality. The example for ACTN, can be applied as well
for functionality like flooding and signaling
Hi Sergio,
We also have a PCE WG document which describes the use of PCEP in ACTN -
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-applicability-actn/. Yes,
ACTN solution via Yang models is perfectly valid. But that should not be a
reason, to stop work on PCEP IMHO.
Regards,
Dhruv
On Tue, Jul
@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Pce] PCEP as an SDN controller protocol?
Hi,
As soon as we started with the active stateful PCE, the PCE became an SDN
controller who takes decision and programs the network.
So as many already mentioned, PCEP as an SBI is already done.
IMO, PCECC does not change sig
Hi Jon, all
Looking at the mail below, it seems as though you derive needs to extend PCEP ,
from the fact PCEP can be consider as having a root role in ACTN context.
Well, while ACTN does not mandate any protocol specific in his architecture,
the basic toolset to operate ACTN architecture is
[mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Daniele Ceccarelli
Sent: 25 July 2017 11:27
To: Julien Meuric; pce@ietf.org
Cc: pce-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] PCEP as an SDN controller protocol?
HI Julien,
your correction is…correct
You’re referring to the protocols running on the DCN,
HI Julien,
your correction is…correct
You’re referring to the protocols running on the DCN, or more appropriately on
the MCN, right? The IGP is usually non TE and just providing reachability
info…but as PCEP can be modified for other purposes, they can be modified as
well. On this I agree
Hi Daniele,
[Operator hat on.]
I agree on several things you wrote, starting from the answer to
Jon's rhetorical question, which cares more about how much (at least
I've never noticed my co-chair has a short memory).
Nevertheless the sentence below
hane.litkow...@orange.com>, Jonathan
Hardwick <jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Cc: "pce-cha...@ietf.org" <pce-cha...@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Pce] PCEP as an SDN controller protocol?
Hi Stephanie,
You said:
<
<jonathan.hardw...@metaswitch.com>; pce@ietf.org
Cc: pce-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] PCEP as an SDN controller protocol?
Hi,
As soon as we started with the active stateful PCE, the PCE became an SDN
controller who takes decision and programs the network.
So as many already mentioned
Hi,
As soon as we started with the active stateful PCE, the PCE became an SDN
controller who takes decision and programs the network.
So as many already mentioned, PCEP as an SBI is already done.
IMO, PCECC does not change significantly PCEP, it's just bring a new kind of
LSP style for this
Hello,
On 20/07/17 18:46, Ramon Casellas wrote:
> We have implemented BGP-LS but I see no reason why PCEP cannot be
> extended for the same (PCEP-LS) being almost functionally equivalent.
With my stateful-pcep co-author hat on, I have to say this boils down to
what is really needed at the
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
26 matches
Mail list logo
