* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Pce Status Pages

Path Computation Element (Active WG)
Rtg Area: Alia Atlas, Alvaro Retana, Deborah Brungard | 2005-Jan-12 —  
Chairs
 
 


IETF-100 pce minutes

Session 2017-11-13 1550-1720: Sophia - Audio stream - pce chatroom

Minutes

minutes-100-pce-02 minute



             PCE Working Group Meeting - Monday, November 13, 2017; 15:50-17:20
             Monday Afternoon session II
             
                o Slides: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/100/session/pce
                o Etherpad: http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-100-
                pce?useMonospaceFont=true
                o Meetecho: http://www.meetecho.com/ietf100/pce
                o Chairs: Jonathan Hardwick, Julien Meuric (remote)
                o Secretery: Dhruv Dhody
             
             1. Introduction 1.1. Administrivia, Agenda Bashing (chairs, 5 min)
             
                - No comments on agenda bashing
             
             1.2. WG Status (chairs, 20 min) [25/90]
             
                Jonathan Hardwick: Stateful PCE is published as RFC 8231 finally!!
                Good to see PCEPS published as well.
                Jon: For draft-ietf-pce-inter-area-as-applicability, re-check if
                we should include stateful PCE details now that stateful PCE RFC
                is published, and if so, the draft will go back to the WG.
                Dhruv Dhody: For draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang,  YANG model draft is
                now stable. Reviews from YANG doctors would be nice, and can go
                along with other TE YANG models.
                Dhruv: ACTN-related drafts (draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce, draft-
                ietf-pce-applicability-actn) are now aligned with the latest ACTN
                framework and stable.
                Stephane Litkowski: Association diversity draft (draft-ietf-pce-
                association-diversity) has addressed a few comments, a small
                change is to be exptected. For policy (draft-ietf-pce-association-
                policy), we are considering adding another TLV for variables for
                policy.
                Dhruv: Regarding scheduling (draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-lsp-
                scheduling), an update was made to keep it aligned with TEAS
                documents as well as RFC8231 and other PCE WG document. More
                reviews would be nice.
                Zafar Ali (proxy by Kamran): For draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-
                gmpls and draft-ietf-pce-remote-initiated-gmpls-lsp, will be
                refreshed tonight.
                Haomian offered to take over editor role for draft-ietf-pce-
                enhanced-errors.
             
             2. WG's I-Ds 2.1. Stateful PCE for P2MP LSPs (Pavan, 5 min) [30/90]
             draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-p2mp-05
             
                Vishnu Pavan Beeram: Request WG LC
                Jon: Request a few reviews of the document as we move this
                document to WG LC and get more eyes on it
             
             3. New I-Ds 3.1. PCEP Extensions for SR leveraging the IPv6 data
             plane (Dhruv Dhody, 10 min) [40/90] draft-negi-pce-segment-routing-
             ipv6-00
             
                Jeff Tantsura: This work is useful and makes sense.
                Jon: It feels obvious to do this. Heads up that LSP-setup-type
                draft will change and that would need to be updated here. This
                draft has a dependency on an issue in the Segment routing draft
                and that should be discussed on the list.
                Jeff: Regarding the dependencies with SRv6 network programming
                work, keep the your extension simple, if you include SRv6 network
                programming details, you would need to wait for a while.
                Dhruv: Yes, we could keep it simple, and make sure it can be
                extend easily later.
             
             4. Previously Discussed Topics 4.1 Association for Path Protection
             (Dhruv Dhody, 10 min) [50/90] draft-ananthakrishnan-pce-stateful-
             path-protection-04 draft-ietf-pce-association-group-04
             
                Jon: Association extended to support Protection would be a good
                idea.
                Poll: How many have read this document? (around 10, good number!)
                Jon: Would take it to the list.
             
             4.2 Association for Bidirectional LSP (Rakesh Gandhi, 10 min) [60/90]
             draft-barth-pce-association-bidir-03
             
                Poll: How many have read this document? (around 6)
                Jon: Would take it to the list, make sure enough eyes on it.
                Jon: Clarification question on double-sided bi-directional lsp.
                Himanshu Shah: Interesting draft, would like to see this adopted.
             
             4.3 PCEP to support Resource Sharing (Haomian Zheng, 10 min) [70/90]
             draft-zhang-pce-resource-sharing-05
             
                Himanshu: Clarification question on diversity v/s sharing
                Poll: How many have read this document? (around 10-12)
                Poll: How many think it is a reasonable base and dopted? (about
                the same)
             
             4.4 Syncronization between Stateful PCEs (Dhruv Dhody, 5 min) [75/90]
             draft-litkowski-pce-state-sync-02
             
                Adrian Farrel: To confirm, are you assuming the sync is always
                from a master PCE to slave PCE? And never to a master.
                Dhruv: Yes, the forwarding rules are defined in such a way to make
                sure that the master has the latest information.
                Jon: Wants to understand the use case better.  Are there multiple
                active PCEs in the network for redundancy and load balancing?
                Dhruv: In the -00 version, only computation loop and redundancy
                was considered, it was further expanded to include more use-cases
                like inter-domain and H-PCE as well.
                Jon: Could these use cases be addressed by horizontal scaling
                within the PCE software?  Do we need a communication standard
                protocol between different PCE instances?
                Dhruv: Both are needed. In some case PCE instances inside cluster
                could use DB sync techniques.
                Jon: You have some other use case on inter-domain, not sure the
                use there either?
                Dhruv: For inter-domain LSP, we need to exchange information for
                inter-domain LSP crossing multiple domains between cooperating
                PCEs for stateful PCE model and similarly for H-PCE keeping the
                database synchronized from child to parent.
                Poll: How many have read this draft?  (only 3-4 hands raised)
                Jon: Not enough traction and get more people involved.
                Stephane: The application based redundancy (such as DB sync) have
                some constraints, such as all PCE instances must be in a single
                site,
                which is not acceptable. We require a more robust handling and
                using PCEP is helpful and simple.
                Jon: You think it is not possible with DB sync with a back-end
                DB.
                Stephane:  Theoretically yes, but practically there are limitation
                and clustering solution works well at same site and has 10-15 ms
                latency which cannot be made to work across multiple sites.
             
          



Generated from PyHt script /wg/pce/minutes.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -