PCE Working Group Meeting IETF-65, March 2006, Dallas

1
PCE Working Group MeetingIETF-65, March 2006,
Dallas

• Path Computation Element (PCE) communication
  Protocol (PCEP) - Version 1 - draft-ietf-pce-pcep-
  01.txt
• JP Vasseur
  (jpv_at_cisco.com)
• Jean-Louis Le Roux
  (jeanlouis.leroux_at_francetelecom.com)
• Arthi Ayyangar
  arthi_at_jnuiper.net)
• Eiji Oki
  (oki.eiji_at_lab.ntt.co.jp)
• Yuichi Ikejiri
  (y.ikejiri_at_ntt.com)
• Alia Atlas
  (akatlas_at_gmail.com)
• Andrew Dolganow
  (andrew.dolganow_at_alcatel.com)
• Kenji Kumaki
  (ke-kumaki_at_kddi.com)

2
Document updates

• The ID has moved to WG document status right
  after the previous IETF meeting,
• Quite a few changes and improvements on the
  document (revision -01) (Main changes below - see
  the email sent to the list for details)
• Editorial Fixed a number of inconsistencies
  between MUST, MAY, ... other semantic
  inconsistencies, new references added, text
  clarifications in a number of places, notion of
  optional/mandatory objects clarified.
• Initially introduced two modes permanent versus
  per-request (negotiated). Actually not needed
  supported by default.
• Close message CLOSE Object added.
• Dynamic negotiation of the Deadtimer with support
  of asymmetrical values for the Keepalive and
  Deadtimer
• Introduction of two BANDWIDTH Object Types (for
  reoptimization)

3
Document updates (Cont)

• DELAY object removed and replaced by a METRIC
  object (with different types support of bounded
  values in PCReq),
• SVEC object added to ability to send
  synchronized path computations in multiple PCReq
  messages,
• The B and N bits of the LSPA object have been
  removed,
• Support of optional suggested values in case of
  unsuccessful path computation,
• Changed the END-POINTS object to be optional
  since there are path computation procedures where
  end-points are unknown. In a further revision we
  may want to have a source (Mandatory) and
  destination (Optional) objects ?

4

• Next steps and Open issues
• New ID related to the use of non PCEP objects in
  a PCE context PCEP code points and contextual
  adaptation
• Add an FSM (soon after this IETF)
• Handling of PCEP version number
• Editorial comments on rev-01 received on the list
  to be addressed.
• Do we want to add an OBJECTIVE function object ?
  ( e.g. minimum cost path, widest path, minimize
  the sum of paths costs, minimize the overall
  bandwidth consumption, maximize the residual
  bandwidth on the most loaded link)