Path Computation Element (PCE) BOF
"Adrian Farrel" <[email protected]> Thu, 17 Jun 2004 22:01:25 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ccamp,gmane.ietf.mpls,gmane.ietf.tewg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <01e201c454ae$f7966d90$d4849ed9@Puppy> |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_01D7_01C454B6.A251D6F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, We will be holding a BOF in San Diego under the care of the Routing = Area. Please see the description, a draft agenda, and proposed charter below. We'd welcome any thoughts for additions to the agenda, and any pointers = to existing drafts that you consider already fit within this scope. If you have views for or against, please bring them to the BOF where we = will hopefully have time to air them fully. Thanks, Adrian and JP =3D=3D=3D=3D Path Computation Element BOF (PCE BOF) Agenda 60th IETF, San Diego, August 2004 =20 Routing Area Ads: Alex Zinin ([email protected]), Bill Fenner ([email protected]) BOF Chairs: JP Vasseur ([email protected]), Adrian Farrel ([email protected]) Description: In certain MPLS TE networks it may be beneficial or desirable to have = path=20 computation performed by a distinct node (termed the Path Computation=20 Element PCE) that is not the LSR that needs to know the path. This BOF=20 examines the scope of such function, what extensions to existing = protocols=20 might required, what additional protocols may need to be developed, and=20 whether there is cuase and support for this work within the IETF. --- =20 Proposed BOF agenda 1) Introduction, admin, statement of objectives of the BOF (10 minutes) 2) Overview of PCE-based LSP Path computation (10 minutes) - terminology - dichotomy (centralized versus distributed, statefull versus=20 stateless, ...) 3) Requirements for PCE-based path computation (5 minutes) - for intra-area TE LSP (packet and non packet LSP, multiple=20 criteria optimization techniques, online/offline) - for inter-area and inter-AS TE (shared information or=20 collaborative computation) 4) Functional requirements of a PCE-based path computation system (10 = minutes) - Framework, - Path computation model - discovery of PCEs within a network - distribution of TE information to PCEs - LSR-PCE communication - Monitoring and Management (MIBs) - Policy/Security/Confidentiality in the context of = inter-providers 5) Current status of drafts and early implementations (10 minutes) 6) Why should this be IETF work? (5 minutes) - CCAMP or new Working Group? - Is this work limited to MPLS-TE? What about BGP route = servers? 7) Proposed charter (see below) (10 minutes) 8) Open discussion (50 minutes) 9) Summary and conclusions (10 minutes) --- =20 Proposed WG Charter =20 Organizational Overview The PCE working group coordinates the work within the IETF of defining = the=20 operation of path computation elements within the Internet. Path=20 computation elements are responsible for computing paths through IP=20 networks for uses such as traffic engineering so that a prime consumer = of=20 such paths might be an MPLS-TE LSR. Areas of responsibility will include = the collection of attributes relevant to the computation of paths, the=20 discovery by LSRs of available path computation elements, the = communication=20 with LSRs for the request of path computation, the collaboration between = path computation elements within the network, and analysis of path=20 computation algorithms with a view to ensuring consistency between = computed=20 paths. The working group will work closely with many working groups in = the=20 Routing Area including the OSPF, IS-IS, IDR, MPLS and CCAMP working = groups. Working Group Scope The PCE working group scope includes: - Definition of Generalized Traffic Engineered LSP paths computation=20 techniques involving Path Computation Element(s). This includes the = intra=20 IGP area, inter IGP area, inter-AS and inter-provider TE LSPs path=20 computation for Point-to-Point, Point-to-Multipoint and=20 Multipoint-to-Multipoint TE LSPs. - Definition of protocol-independent metrics and constraints defining = path=20 quality measurement criteria, algorithm complexity and scalability = criteria=20 related to path computation techniques. - Definition of requirements for communication between LSRs and PCEs=20 including routing extensions in support of PCE discovery techniques = within=20 an IGP area and across multiple IGP areas, ASes and Provider networks, = and=20 including the development of new protocols or protocol extensions for=20 requesting path computation and supplying responses. Any protocol=20 extensions will developed in conjunction with the working groups in = charge=20 of the specific protocols. - Specification of routing (OSPF, ISIS, BGP) and signalling extensions=20 (RSVP-TE) required by PCE-based path computation techniques. The = extensions=20 will developed in conjunction with the working groups in charge of the = specific protocols. - Specification of requirements and protocol extensions related to the=20 policy, security and confidentiality aspects of PCE-based path = computation=20 techniques involving PCEs of multiple Providers. - Definition of MIBs, management procedures related to the protocol=20 extensions defined by the WG In doing this work, the WG will closely work with at least the following = other WGs: CCAMP, MPLS, ISIS, OSPF, IDR. The WG will also cooperate with = the ITU-T and OIF. Goals and Milestones Dates for milestones to be decided later. Post strawman WG goals and charter. Submit WG document defining the framework and applicability of the=20 PCE model. Select a single candidate protocol from communication between LSRs=20 and PCEs. Submit document(s) that define various path computation models =20 Submit an analysis document examining the requirements for coherent computation techniques and the implication of cooperation between=20 PCEs. Submit a document defining the protocol for communication between=20 LSRs and PCEs. Submit document(s) defining extensions to routing and signalling=20 protocols necessary to support the use of a PCE model within MPLS networks. =20 Submit a document defining MIB modules for modeling and management=20 of PCE systems. ------=_NextPart_000_01D7_01C454B6.A251D6F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1170" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><FONT face=3DCourier size=3D2>Hi,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DCourier size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DCourier size=3D2>We will be holding a BOF in San Diego = under the=20 care of the Routing Area.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DCourier size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DCourier size=3D2>Please see the description, a draft = agenda, and=20 proposed charter below.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DCourier size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DCourier size=3D2>We'd welcome any thoughts for = additions to the=20 agenda, and any pointers to existing drafts that you consider already = fit within=20 this scope.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DCourier size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DCourier size=3D2>If you have views for or against, = please bring=20 them to the BOF where we will hopefully have time to air them=20 fully.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DCourier size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DCourier size=3D2>Thanks,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DCourier size=3D2>Adrian and JP</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DCourier size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DCourier size=3D2>=3D=3D=3D=3D</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DCourier size=3D2> Path Computation Element BOF (PCE = BOF)=20 Agenda<BR>60th IETF, San Diego, August 2004<BR> <BR> Routing Area = Ads: Alex=20 Zinin (</FONT><A href=3D"mailto:[email protected]"><FONT face=3DCourier=20 size=3D2>[email protected]</FONT></A><FONT face=3DCourier = size=3D2>),</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DCourier=20 size=3D2> &nbs= p; =20 Bill Fenner (</FONT><A = href=3D"mailto:[email protected]"><FONT=20 face=3DCourier size=3D2>[email protected]</FONT></A><FONT = face=3DCourier=20 size=3D2>)<BR><BR>BOF Chairs: JP Vasseur (</FONT><A=20 href=3D"mailto:[email protected]"><FONT face=3DCourier=20 size=3D2>[email protected]</FONT></A><FONT face=3DCourier = size=3D2>),</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DCourier=20 size=3D2> = Adrian=20 Farrel (</FONT><A href=3D"mailto:[email protected]"><FONT = face=3DCourier=20 size=3D2>[email protected]</FONT></A><FONT face=3DCourier=20 size=3D2>)<BR><BR>Description:<BR>In certain MPLS TE networks it may be = beneficial=20 or desirable to have path <BR>computation performed by a distinct = node=20 (termed the Path Computation <BR>Element PCE) that is not the = LSR=20 that needs to know the path. This BOF <BR>examines the scope of = such=20 function, what extensions to existing protocols <BR>might required, = what=20 additional protocols may need to be developed, and <BR>whether = there is=20 cuase and support for this work within the IETF.<BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DCourier size=3D2>---</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DCourier size=3D2> <BR>Proposed BOF agenda<BR>1) = Introduction,=20 admin, statement of objectives of the BOF (10 minutes)<BR>2) Overview of = PCE-based LSP Path computation (10=20 minutes)<BR> -=20 terminology<BR> - = dichotomy=20 (centralized versus distributed, statefull=20 versus <BR> &nb= sp; stateless,=20 ...)<BR>3) Requirements for PCE-based path computation (5=20 minutes)<BR> - for = intra-area TE=20 LSP (packet and non packet LSP,=20 multiple <BR> &= nbsp; criteria=20 optimization techniques,=20 online/offline)<BR> - = for=20 inter-area and inter-AS TE (shared information=20 or <BR> =20 collaborative computation)<BR>4) Functional requirements of a = PCE-based=20 path computation system (10=20 minutes)<BR> -=20 Framework,<BR> - Path=20 computation model<BR> -=20 discovery of PCEs within a=20 network<BR> - = distribution of TE=20 information to PCEs<BR> = -=20 LSR-PCE = communication<BR> -=20 Monitoring and Management=20 (MIBs)<BR> -=20 Policy/Security/Confidentiality in the context of inter-providers<BR>5) = Current=20 status of drafts and early implementations (10 minutes)<BR>6) Why should = this be=20 IETF work? (5 = minutes)<BR> -=20 CCAMP or new Working = Group?<BR> =20 - Is this work limited to MPLS-TE? What about BGP route servers?<BR>7) = Proposed=20 charter (see below) (10 minutes)<BR>8) Open discussion (50 = minutes)<BR>9)=20 Summary and conclusions (10 minutes)<BR></DIV></FONT> <DIV><FONT face=3DCourier size=3D2>---</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DCourier size=3D2> <BR>Proposed WG=20 Charter<BR> <BR>Organizational Overview<BR>The PCE working group=20 coordinates the work within the IETF of defining the <BR> operation = of path=20 computation elements within the Internet. Path <BR>computation = elements are=20 responsible for computing paths through IP <BR>networks for uses = such as=20 traffic engineering so that a prime consumer of <BR>such paths = might be an=20 MPLS-TE LSR. Areas of responsibility will include <BR>the = collection of=20 attributes relevant to the computation of paths, the <BR>discovery = by LSRs=20 of available path computation elements, the communication <BR>with = LSRs for=20 the request of path computation, the collaboration between <BR>path = computation elements within the network, and analysis of=20 path <BR>computation algorithms with a view to ensuring consistency = between=20 computed <BR>paths. The working group will work closely with many = working=20 groups in the <BR>Routing Area including the OSPF, IS-IS, IDR, MPLS = and=20 CCAMP working groups.<BR><BR>Working Group Scope<BR>The PCE working = group scope=20 includes:<BR>- Definition of Generalized Traffic Engineered LSP = paths=20 computation <BR> techniques involving Path Computation = Element(s).=20 This includes the intra <BR> IGP area, inter IGP area, = inter-AS and=20 inter-provider TE LSPs path <BR> computation for = Point-to-Point,=20 Point-to-Multipoint and <BR> Multipoint-to-Multipoint TE = LSPs.<BR>-=20 Definition of protocol-independent metrics and constraints defining=20 path <BR> quality measurement criteria, algorithm complexity = and=20 scalability criteria <BR> related to path computation=20 techniques.<BR>- Definition of requirements for communication between = LSRs and=20 PCEs <BR> including routing extensions in support of PCE = discovery=20 techniques within <BR> an IGP area and across multiple IGP = areas,=20 ASes and Provider networks, and <BR> including the = development of new=20 protocols or protocol extensions for <BR> requesting path = computation=20 and supplying responses. Any protocol <BR> extensions will = developed=20 in conjunction with the working groups in charge <BR> of the = specific=20 protocols.<BR>- Specification of routing (OSPF, ISIS, BGP) and = signalling=20 extensions <BR> (RSVP-TE) required by PCE-based path = computation=20 techniques. The extensions <BR> will developed in conjunction with = the=20 working groups in charge of the <BR> specific protocols.<BR>-=20 Specification of requirements and protocol extensions related to=20 the <BR> policy, security and confidentiality aspects of = PCE-based=20 path computation <BR> techniques involving PCEs of multiple=20 Providers.<BR>- Definition of MIBs, management procedures related to the = protocol <BR> extensions defined by the WG<BR><BR>In doing = this work,=20 the WG will closely work with at least the following <BR>other WGs: = CCAMP,=20 MPLS, ISIS, OSPF, IDR. The WG will also cooperate with <BR>the=20 ITU-T and OIF.<BR><BR>Goals and Milestones<BR><BR>Dates for = milestones to=20 be decided later.<BR><BR> Post strawman WG goals and=20 charter.<BR><BR> Submit WG document defining the framework and=20 applicability of the <BR> PCE model.<BR><BR> = Select a=20 single candidate protocol from communication between = LSRs <BR> and=20 PCEs.<BR><BR> Submit document(s) that define various path = computation=20 models<BR> <BR> Submit an analysis document examining the=20 requirements for coherent<BR> computation techniques and the = implication=20 of cooperation between <BR> PCEs.<BR><BR> Submit a = document=20 defining the protocol for communication between <BR> LSRs=20 and PCEs.<BR><BR> Submit document(s) defining extensions to = routing=20 and signalling <BR> protocols necessary to support the = use of a=20 PCE model within MPLS</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3DCourier = size=3D2> networks.<BR> <BR> Submit=20 a document defining MIB modules for modeling and = management <BR> of=20 PCE systems.<BR></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_01D7_01C454B6.A251D6F0--