Re: PCE Requirement in CCAMP

[dimitri papadimitriou <dpapadimitriou@psg.com>]

hi jp, adrian

it depends on the perspective, as such this document is meant to address 
the following item of the charter (last part)

"- In cooperation with protocol specific Working Group (OSPF, ISIS, IDR,
MPLS, CCAMP), development of routing (OSPF, ISIS, BGP) and LSP
signaling (RSVP-TE) extensions required to support PCE-based path
computation models."

therefore, it was my understanding that the PCE WG would be waiting for 
the need wrt signaling for detailing its applicability; you (and adrian) 
seems to say we will define the requirement for PCE-based inter-domain 
path computation and resulting signaling behaviour/mechanisms would then 
need to be adapted in CCAMP

in brief, with your proposal PCE WG would be entering into a mode where 
the computational capabilities are going to drive LSP signaling itself, 
as an analogy RSVP-TE operations are decoupled from the routing 
topology; so here, the same relationship should be kept with respect to 
the computational scope/capabilities and behaviour of PCE(s)

thanks,
- dimitri.

JP Vasseur wrote:

> Dear WG,
>
> CCAMP proposed to work on GMPLS requirements for PCE as necessary.
>
> Considering the work which has been done by the PCE WG on  requirements, it
> looks now more natural to move this work exclusively to the PCE WG.
>
> That said, since Inter-domain (G)MPLS TE falls under the scope of CCAMP,
> any requirements for PCE-based Inter-domain LSP computation should be
> discussed in the PCE WG *with* the review of the CCAMP WG.
>
> Similarly, non-packet networks may result in specific additional
> requirements for PCE. We propose that these requirements are also raised
> within the PCE working group and reviewed by CCAMP.
>
> Let us know if you have any opinion on or objection to these proposals.
>
> JP and Adrian (wearing PCE chair hat)
>
>
> .