Path Computation Clients (PCC) - Path Computation Element (PCE) Requirements for Point-to-Multipoint MPLS-TE
RFC 5862
Revision differences
Document history
| Date | Rev. | By | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2018-12-20
|
05 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'The Path Computation Element (PCE) provides path computation functions in support of traffic engineering in Multiprotocol … Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed abstract to 'The Path Computation Element (PCE) provides path computation functions in support of traffic engineering in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks. Extensions to the MPLS and GMPLS signaling and routing protocols have been made in support of point-to-multipoint (P2MP) Traffic Engineered (TE) Label Switched Paths (LSPs). The use of PCE in MPLS networks is already established, and since P2MP TE LSP routes are sometimes complex to compute, it is likely that PCE will be used for P2MP LSPs. Generic requirements for a communication protocol between Path Computation Clients (PCCs) and PCEs are presented in RFC 4657, "Path Computation Element (PCE) Communication Protocol Generic Requirements". This document complements the generic requirements and presents a detailed set of PCC-PCE communication protocol requirements for point-to-multipoint MPLS/GMPLS traffic engineering. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.') |
|
2015-10-14
|
05 | (System) | Notify list changed from pce-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-req@ietf.org to (None) |
|
2010-06-08
|
05 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Amy Vezza |
|
2010-06-08
|
05 | Amy Vezza | [Note]: 'RFC 5862' added by Amy Vezza |
|
2010-06-08
|
05 | (System) | RFC published |
|
2010-02-23
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-02-22
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
|
2010-02-22
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
|
2010-02-22
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
|
2010-02-22
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
|
2010-02-22
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
|
2010-02-19
|
05 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2010-02-18 |
|
2010-02-18
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-02-18
|
05 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
|
2010-02-18
|
05 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
|
2010-02-18
|
05 | Tim Polk | [Ballot comment] |
|
2010-02-18
|
05 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks |
|
2010-02-18
|
05 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov |
|
2010-02-17
|
05 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms |
|
2010-02-17
|
05 | Tim Polk | [Ballot comment] Section 2.1.9, R10 ends with the following sentence: The PCC MUST be able to supply these paths as compressed … [Ballot comment] Section 2.1.9, R10 ends with the following sentence: The PCC MUST be able to supply these paths as compressed paths or as a non-compressed paths (see Section 2.1.6) according to the preference of the PCC. Should the second occurrence of PCC be PCE? To be clear, I am confused as to who chooses the format... |
|
2010-02-17
|
05 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
|
2010-02-16
|
05 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
|
2010-02-16
|
05 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
|
2010-02-16
|
05 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
|
2010-01-29
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel |
|
2010-01-29
|
05 | Ross Callon | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-02-18 by Ross Callon |
|
2010-01-29
|
05 | Ross Callon | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Ross Callon |
|
2010-01-29
|
05 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ross Callon |
|
2010-01-29
|
05 | Ross Callon | Ballot has been issued by Ross Callon |
|
2010-01-29
|
05 | Ross Callon | Created "Approve" ballot |
|
2010-01-29
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-req-05.txt |
|
2010-01-29
|
05 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
|
2010-01-25
|
05 | Amanda Baber | IANA comments: As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document to have NO IANA Actions. |
|
2010-01-21
|
05 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Larry Zhu |
|
2010-01-21
|
05 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Larry Zhu |
|
2010-01-15
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Last call sent |
|
2010-01-15
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Cindy Morgan |
|
2010-01-15
|
05 | Ross Callon | Last Call was requested by Ross Callon |
|
2010-01-15
|
05 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
|
2010-01-15
|
05 | (System) | Last call text was added |
|
2010-01-15
|
05 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
|
2010-01-15
|
05 | Ross Callon | State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Ross Callon |
|
2010-01-15
|
05 | Adrian Farrel | Responsible AD has been changed to Ross Callon from Adrian Farrel |
|
2010-01-14
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Proto-write-up for draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-req-04.txt Intended status : Informational Track > (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the > Document Shepherd personally reviewed … Proto-write-up for draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-req-04.txt Intended status : Informational Track > (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the > Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the > document and, in particular, does he or she believe this > version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? JP Vasseur is the document shepherd. He has personally reviewed the document and believes it is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication. > (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members > and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have > any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that > have been performed? The I-D has been discussed and reviewed by the Working group. > (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document > needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, > e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with > AAA, internationalization or XML? No concerns. > (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or > issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director > and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he > or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or > has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any > event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated > that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those > concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document > been filed? If so, please include a reference to the > disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on > this issue. The document is sound. > (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it > represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with > others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and > agree with it? Good consensus. > (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme > discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in > separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It > should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is > entered into the ID Tracker.) No threats. No discontent. > (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the > document satisfies all ID nits? (See > http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and > http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are > not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document > met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB > Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? Checks have been made. No Errors. > (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and > informative? Are there normative references to documents that > are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear > state? If such normative references exist, what is the > strategy for their completion? Are there normative references > that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If > so, list these downward references to support the Area > Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. References split. No downrefs. > (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA > consideration section exists and is consistent with the body > of the document? If the document specifies protocol > extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA > registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If > the document creates a new registry, does it define the > proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation > procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a > reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the > document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd > conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG > can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? No IANA action. > (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the > document that are written in a formal language, such as XML > code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in > an automated checker? No such formal language is used. > (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document > Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document > Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the > "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval > announcement contains the following sections: > > Technical Summary > Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract > and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be > an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract > or introduction. The Path Computation Element (PCE) defined in [RFC4655] is an entity that is capable of computing a network path or route based on a network graph, and applying computational constraints. The intention is that the PCE is used to compute the path of Traffic Engineered Label Switched Paths (TE LSPs) within Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) networks. Requirements for point-to-multipoint (P2MP) MPLS TE LSPs are documented in [RFC4461] and signaling protocol extensions for setting up P2MP MPLS TE LSPs are defined in [RFC4875]. P2MP MPLS TE networks are considered in support of various features including layer 3 multicast VPNs [RFC4834]. Path computation for P2MP TE LSPs presents a significant challenge, and network optimization of multiple P2MP TE LSPs requires considerable computational resources. PCE offers a way to offload such path computations from Label Switching Routers (LSRs). The applicability of the PCE-based path computation architecture to P2MP MPLS TE is described in a companion document [PCE-P2MP-APP]. No further attempt is made to justify the use of PCE for P2MP MPLS TE within this document. This document presents a set of PCC-PCE communication protocol (PCECP) requirements for P2MP MPLS traffic engineering. It supplements the generic requirements documented in [RFC4657]. > Working Group Summary > Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For > example, was there controversy about particular points or > were there decisions where the consensus was particularly > rough? No controversy. > Document Quality > Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a > significant number of vendors indicated their plan to > implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that > merit special mention as having done a thorough review, > e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a > conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If > there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, > what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type > review, on what date was the request posted? The I-D is informational and specifies requirements. |
|
2010-01-14
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Draft Added by Cindy Morgan in state Publication Requested |
|
2010-01-14
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'JP Vasseur (jvasseur@cisco.com) is the document shepherd.' added by Cindy Morgan |
|
2009-12-04
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-req-04.txt |
|
2009-10-16
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-req-03.txt |
|
2009-08-20
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-req-02.txt |
|
2009-08-17
|
05 | (System) | Document has expired |
|
2009-02-13
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-req-01.txt |
|
2008-08-27
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-pce-p2mp-req-00.txt |