draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios-03.txt   draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios-04.txt 
TEAS Working Group A. Wang TEAS Working Group A. Wang
Internet-Draft China Telecom Internet-Draft China Telecom
Intended status: Experimental X. Huang Intended status: Informational X. Huang
Expires: October 11, 2019 C. Kou Expires: December 5, 2019 C. Kou
BUPT BUPT
Z. Li Z. Li
China Mobile China Mobile
P. Mi P. Mi
Huawei Technologies Huawei Technologies
April 9, 2019 June 3, 2019
Scenario, Simulation and Suggestion of PCE in Native IP Network Scenario, Simulation and Suggestion of PCE in Native IP Network
draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios-03 draft-ietf-teas-native-ip-scenarios-04
Abstract Abstract
This document describes the scenarios, simulation and suggestions for This document describes the scenarios, simulation and suggestions for
PCE in native IP network, which integrates the merit of distributed PCE in native IP network, which integrates the merit of distributed
protocols (IGP/BGP), and the power of centrally control technologies protocols (IGP/BGP), and the power of centrally control technologies
(PCE/SDN) to provide one feasible traffic engineering solution in (PCE/SDN) to provide one feasible traffic engineering solution in
various complex scenarios for the service provider. various complex scenarios for the service provider.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
skipping to change at page 1, line 40 skipping to change at page 1, line 40
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 11, 2019. This Internet-Draft will expire on December 5, 2019.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 3, line 8 skipping to change at page 3, line 8
dynamic QoS assurance requirements within real time traffic network. dynamic QoS assurance requirements within real time traffic network.
SR(Segment Routing) is another solution that integrates some merits SR(Segment Routing) is another solution that integrates some merits
of distributed protocol and the advantages of centrally control mode, of distributed protocol and the advantages of centrally control mode,
but it requires the underlying network, especially the provider edge but it requires the underlying network, especially the provider edge
router to do label push and pop action in-depth, and need complex router to do label push and pop action in-depth, and need complex
mechanic for coexisting with the Non-SR network. Additionally, it mechanic for coexisting with the Non-SR network. Additionally, it
can only maneuver the end-to-end path for MPLS and IPv6 traffic via can only maneuver the end-to-end path for MPLS and IPv6 traffic via
different mechanisms. different mechanisms.
DetNet[RFC8578] describes use cases for diverse industries that have
in common a need for "deterministic flows", which can provide
guaranteed bandwidth, bounded latency, and other properties germane
to the transport of time-sensitive data. The use cases focus mainly
on the industrial critical applications within one centrally
controlled corporate network and are out of scope of this draft. And
as described in [I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-ip], the solution for the
DetNet use cases requires the update of the network data plane, which
is not easy being deployed within the service provider network and is
out of scope that described in [I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip]
This draft describes scenarios that the centrally control dynamic This draft describes scenarios that the centrally control dynamic
routing (CCDR) framework can easily solve, without adding more extra routing (CCDR) framework can easily solve, without adding more extra
burden on the router. It also gives the path optimization simulation burden on the router. It also gives the path optimization simulation
results to illustrate the applicability of CCDR framework. Finally, results to illustrate the applicability of CCDR framework. Finally,
it gives some suggestions for the implementation and deployment of it gives some suggestions for the implementation and deployment of
CCDR. CCDR.
2. Conventions used in this document 2. Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
skipping to change at page 11, line 37 skipping to change at page 11, line 37
Lu Huang contributes to the content of this draft. Lu Huang contributes to the content of this draft.
9. Acknowledgement 9. Acknowledgement
The author would like to thank Deborah Brungard, Adrian Farrel, The author would like to thank Deborah Brungard, Adrian Farrel,
Huaimo Chen, Vishnu Beeram and Lou Berger for their supports and Huaimo Chen, Vishnu Beeram and Lou Berger for their supports and
comments on this draft. comments on this draft.
10. Normative References 10. Normative References
[I-D.ietf-detnet-dp-sol-ip]
Korhonen, J. and B. Varga, "DetNet IP Data Plane
Encapsulation", draft-ietf-detnet-dp-sol-ip-02 (work in
progress), March 2019.
[I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip]
Wang, A., Khasanov, B., Cheruathur, S., Zhu, C., and S.
Fang, "PCEP Extension for Native IP Network", draft-ietf-
pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-03 (work in progress), March
2019.
[I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip] [I-D.ietf-teas-pce-native-ip]
Wang, A., Zhao, Q., Khasanov, B., Chen, H., and R. Mallya, Wang, A., Zhao, Q., Khasanov, B., Chen, H., and R. Mallya,
"PCE in Native IP Network", draft-ietf-teas-pce-native- "PCE in Native IP Network", draft-ietf-teas-pce-native-
ip-02 (work in progress), October 2018. ip-03 (work in progress), April 2019.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation [RFC5440] Vasseur, JP., Ed. and JL. Le Roux, Ed., "Path Computation
Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440, Element (PCE) Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC 5440,
DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009, DOI 10.17487/RFC5440, March 2009,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5440>.
[RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody, [RFC8253] Lopez, D., Gonzalez de Dios, O., Wu, Q., and D. Dhody,
"PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the "PCEPS: Usage of TLS to Provide a Secure Transport for the
Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)", Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP)",
RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017, RFC 8253, DOI 10.17487/RFC8253, October 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8253>.
[RFC8578] Grossman, E., Ed., "Deterministic Networking Use Cases",
RFC 8578, DOI 10.17487/RFC8578, May 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8578>.
Authors' Addresses Authors' Addresses
Aijun Wang Aijun Wang
China Telecom China Telecom
Beiqijia Town, Changping District Beiqijia Town, Changping District
Beijing, Beijing 102209 Beijing, Beijing 102209
China China
Email: wangaj.bri@chinatelecom.cn Email: wangaj.bri@chinatelecom.cn
 End of changes. 8 change blocks. 
6 lines changed or deleted 32 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/