[15:24:06] Desire joins the room [15:39:19] Jonas Martensson joins the room [15:41:13] AdrianFarrel joins the room [15:41:31] Hej, hej! [15:41:46] I'm in the physical room and can channel [15:41:56] I am not planning to do detailed running notes [15:41:59] Kenichi joins the room [15:42:04] Just main comments [15:42:09] Chairs open meeting [15:42:47] Introduce Julien and Dan King [15:43:00] Agenda bash [15:43:22] No comments rxd [15:43:59] No-one working on Applicability Statement [15:44:05] Volunteers? [15:45:05] MIB co-authors no longer working on PCE or MIBs. Will they complete or need new volunteers? [15:45:27] WG updates: 6 new RFCs [15:49:03] monitoring I-D is with AD to check IANA question correctly addressed [15:49:24] VPN reqs to stay alive while solution developed [15:49:46] scott.mansfield joins the room [15:49:51] Next slot Dan King - PCEP P2MP [15:50:38] Really looking at -03 (-04 is ready, but not had a chance for people to read it) [15:54:08] JP - do service providers have an interest? [15:54:18] Hand show at least Dave McDyson [15:55:00] Next slot : Quintin Zhao inter-domain PCEP [15:55:05] (for P2MP) [15:56:44] Kenichi leaves the room: Replaced by new connection [15:56:48] Kenichi joins the room [15:58:28] Dan King : Zafar Ali BRPC solution does not compete. It is complementary. [15:58:53] It solves the same problem for a specific set of networks (smaller) [15:59:09] JP : What are you r plans to work with the other authors? [15:59:39] Dan : Conference call or meet at the next IETF [15:59:53] JP : WG status when you have a plan for working together [16:00:04] JP : What about service providers? [16:00:53] Dan : We took it to conferences to see what SPs think. Got some good feedback from folk who don't come to IETF. [16:01:09] JP : Get comments sent to the mailing list [16:01:21] Dan : I have some notes from iPOP I can send in [16:01:46] JP : What about management/policy/political issues? Lots of concern about "huge amounts of traffic" [16:02:08] Next slot : Young Lee : Alternative way to create TE database [16:05:37] Updates from last version... [16:06:30] Removed protocol discussion to leave only requirements (arch and framework) [16:06:38] JP : Good, but... [16:06:59] Devil is in the detail. Architecture looks like BGP architecture with route refletcors [16:07:19] Young : just ellaborate possible options to consider. When WG shows interest we can work on solutions [16:08:28] Benefits of the approach... [16:08:48] JP : 1st bullet (storage demand) did you evaluate the difference? [16:09:17] Young : if use IGP have to upgrade our control plane n/w and processor [16:09:29] this is one of the motivation [16:10:09] JP : But storage is the same? How do you know what change in protocol load? [16:10:20] Young : Same storage space, but not on all nodes [16:10:48] Greg Bernstein : By not keeping all the data in all places you are not doing the flooding for that data [16:11:06] JP : If you don't do it you can't fall back on distributed computation [16:11:36] In the packet world off-line computation is usually combined with distributed computation [16:11:50] Young : considering the possiblities and architecture [16:12:14] Wen Hu Lou : Reduced storage demand means partial topology information [16:12:27] Greg : No, we mean at the nodes, not at the PCE [16:13:09] WHL : That is what I meant. This looks like oposite to what IGP does. [16:13:36] This is a tradeoff of storage and computation time. Beyond storage gain, have you considered the loss of speed [16:14:08] Greg : When you get to GMPLS etc. we need more info that you don't use for IP-type computations. Eg WSON, SONET etc. [16:14:32] Necessary for optimisation. Hence compromise of lots of data versus where computation is done [16:15:07] Not trying to improve the stability of the n/w. This is info used for optimization [16:15:33] Young : Want WG support before we work on more analysis [16:15:41] Not interested in implementation at the moment [16:16:10] Solution space is not competing with IGP for packet. Rather compating with IGP for other environments [16:16:44] igor Bryskin : Want to answer question and correct greg [16:17:06] Always save memory on nodes if TED is only held on PCEs [16:18:06] Not so obvious that you save storage on PCE compare with IGP. Because need two copies of data (LSADB and TED) [16:18:16] JP : disagree. this is an implementation issue [16:18:28] Igor explains [16:18:32] JP sort of agrees [16:18:53] JP usually you don't store data twice [16:19:40] Igor : yes on PCE you need LSAs in the DB exactly as recedived in order to flood. then you also need the same info in the TED [16:19:47] scott.mansfield leaves the room [16:20:38] Another issue (Igor) it is obviously more efficient to send data just from node to PCE rather than flood all data in all directions [16:21:04] [Back to presentation - final slide] [16:21:28] Loa Andersson's phone rings [16:21:49] Asks for WG adoption [16:22:27] Greg Bernstein : This is an analysis doc. Not solutions. Tying to answer the questions [16:22:47] JP : Why can't you do analysis w/o being WG doc? [16:23:08] JP : There are implications on other WGs (esp. CCAMP) [16:23:15] CCAMP chairs not in the room [16:23:35] JP : Agree with first slide. This is not against PCE architecture. [16:24:09] But does impact how the n/w is operated. Suggest meet with authors and chairs of both WGs [16:24:29] Next slot : Dan King : PCE hierarchy framework [16:27:01] Dave McDysan : What is meant "no preference for choice of interconnection". Not clear from the draft. [16:27:45] Dan : Per-domain PC is good if you have a good idea of where the prefered interconnection is. In BRPC you can let BRPC work out the best interconnection points [16:28:04] [back to presentation - navigating the domain mesh] [16:31:47] JP : agreed in WG that there is no need for dynamicity [in what respect?] [16:32:13] [back to pres : hierarchical PCE example] [16:34:39] JP : Did you look at how this relates to the policy framework? [16:34:43] Dan : nope [16:34:57] [back to pres : procedures] [16:36:24] Dan : not asking WG status [16:37:10] Igor Bryskin : I think good work and good start BUT benefit is obviously that you identify the chain of domains. Recommend limit to domain path. Don't summarise TE info [16:37:24] Dan : NOT TRYING TO SUMMARISE TE INFORMATION! [16:38:24] Hierarchical PCE does not have knowledge of the topology or paths in the child domain [16:39:38] Adrian : There is absolutely no way my name would be on any draft that proposed TE aggregation [16:40:32] Wen Hu Lou : Step 5 is there a single point of failure at parent node. Could this be done in a distributed way by "promoting" a child? [16:40:45] Dan : yes as per designated router election [16:41:43] WHL : If we are doing this, nodes have dual role. In this case, elected parent needs to know domain topology [16:41:58] Dan : Yes, perhaps not all children can be promoted [16:42:44] Fatai Zhang : Also good idea. Is there is a sequence ordering for requests from parent? [16:43:04] Dan : might depend on applicability [16:43:18] Fatai : Can speed things up by pipelining all requests [16:43:21] Dan : Yes [16:44:38] jon Sadler : very supportive as consistent with G.7715 etc [16:44:43] Would you support multiple generations [16:44:53] Dan : Mayne / maybe not [16:45:04] Adrian : Absolutely multiple levels [16:46:48] Next slot : Kenichi Ogaki : GMPLS requirements in PCE [16:48:44] No questions [16:49:07] Julien : Update it when you can and ask for feedback [16:49:28] Next slot : Young Lee : WSON requirements and extensions [16:53:01] Julien : This is also in the package of I-Ds to discuss with CCAMP chairs [16:53:24] Young : but this is specific to PCE WG (it is PCEP) you should make the decision [16:53:46] Julien : we need strong coordination with CCAMP (doesn't change the way this draft fits the PCE working group) [16:54:06] Igor Bryskin : How do you identify wavelength for inclusion in the path [16:54:21] Young : available wavelength must be advertised into TED [16:54:47] Igor : Did you include tunable? [16:54:51] Young : Yes [16:55:09] Igor : Can you indicate that the NE can choose a tunable wavelength [16:55:20] Greg : Two pieces... [16:56:38] [Oh, I lost context :-(] [16:58:26] Igor : Need to be able to select the device (==resource) which is not the same as the frequency label [16:58:38] Julien : This question is also relevant to CCAMP [16:59:04] Next slot : Greg Bernstein : WSON impairment requirements [17:08:23] Dan King : Do you have requirements from other Eastern European requirements? [17:08:27] Huh? [17:08:35] You say Polish requirements on the last slide [17:08:53] Igor : What does "several paths" mean [17:09:04] greg : there is some limit [17:09:21] Desire leaves the room: Computer went to sleep [17:09:23] Igor : what if all potential paths are failures [17:09:39] Do I ask for another several paths [17:10:03] Greg : Hmm. Need to think about this. may be a good item to consider [17:10:17] Igor : Need to use XROs? [17:10:39] JP : Use PCEP to report status to monitor LSPs? [17:10:57] Greg : Reason why computation did not complete is too much info? [17:11:56] WHL : If I make a mistake in setting a constraint, how will I find out which constraint causes the failure [17:12:21] JP : We discussed relaxing constraints on the fly some years ago. This is hard, but interesting [17:13:05] Dan King : A scenario is that you have a hard set of minimum requirements and a set of desires. It is an NP hard problem [17:13:39] Giovanni : [oops I dropped it] [17:14:06] RWA and IV separation [17:14:16] Greg : both pieces have look and feel of PCEs [17:15:32] Greg : explains some of the material in the draft [17:16:22] Eric Gray : Does your model assume tat requests are handled n/w wide one at a time. Or have you simulated what happens when many requests are asked at the same time from different places [17:17:08] Greg : restricting to this sub case at this time [17:17:35] Lou berger : maybe makes the work less useful (or ist this walk before running) [17:17:53] Does lambda specific info go across the RWA/IV interface? [17:18:02] Greg : would be useful if it exsists [17:18:38] Lou : particularly if must choose lambda depending on interfverence [17:18:42] [meeting done] [17:19:01] Kenichi leaves the room [17:20:49] florin coras joins the room [17:20:53] Desire joins the room [17:21:33] Jonas Martensson leaves the room: I'm happy Miranda IM user. Get it at http://miranda-im.org/. [17:22:30] florin coras leaves the room [17:27:53] AdrianFarrel leaves the room [17:44:03] Desire leaves the room