1 / 9

Manageability Considerations: Experience from the PCE WG Julien Meuric

Manageability Considerations: Experience from the PCE WG Julien Meuric (julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com) Quoting current and former PCE co-chairs: Jean-Philippe Vasseur, a.k.a. J.P. Adrian Farrel, 2009 A.D. A Bit of His(S)tory. Back to IETF 65, March 2006

cynthia-warren
Download Presentation

Manageability Considerations: Experience from the PCE WG Julien Meuric

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Manageability Considerations: Experience from the PCE WG Julien Meuric (julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com) Quoting current and former PCE co-chairs: Jean-Philippe Vasseur, a.k.a. J.P. Adrian Farrel, 2009 A.D.

  2. A Bit of His(S)tory • Back to IETF 65, March 2006 • Dallas is flooded on Sunday evening • PCE WG is one-year-old • draft-farrel-rtg-manageability-requirements-01 is available • A co-chair with a grey beard • Sailing against wind and tide • Came from the UK... • … up with a proposal

  3. The (Decent) Proposal • Make a manageability section mandatory in every single I-D (similarly to the security considerations) • Convert that manageability I-D into a process experiment (RFC 3933) • Limit the scope to the PCE WG • Get support from: chairs, WG, routing area ADs, IETF • Run the experiment for milestones • Report to the IESG and routing area ADs at the end of the period

  4. The (Good) Reasons • Some I-Ds already included extensive manageability consideration sections (e.g., architectural I-D) • Manageability is important to the PCE anyway (maybe it is not such an overhead) • More work for reviewers and chair to make sure there is conformance • Better end product

  5. Steping into the WG • October 2006 • draft-farrel-pce-manageability-requirements-00 is published • January 2007 • WG is polled on adoption of -02 • Positive comments are sent to the list • The I-D is endorsed by the WG • Experiment can officially start • PCE I-Ds MUST include a manageability section • This mandatory section MAY be empty

  6. Recommended Subsections • Control of Function Through Configuration and Policy • Information and Data Models, e.g. MIB modules • Liveness Detection and Monitoring • Verifying Correct Operation • Requirements on Other Protocols and Functional Components • Impact on Network Operation • ...

  7. Document Examples • RFC 4655: PCE-Based Architecture • RFC 4655: Requirements for PCE Discovery • RFC 5088: OSPF Extensions for PCE Discovery • RFC 5440: PCEP • RFC 5520: Topology Confidentiality • RFC 5623: Framework for Inter-Layer TE

  8. Conclusions • Mandating the manageability section has been beneficial to PCE documents • Went more easily through IESG • Protocol design with operators' final use in mind • Does not seem a burden • Section can say there is nothing to say • Other WGs such as ROLL adopted that approach in the design of new protocols such as RPL • What about widening the scope beyond? • RFC 5706 obsoletes draft-farrel: I-D moved to historic but experiment actually happened

  9. A Few Quotes • A beardless chair: “not only helped protocol designer think about how protocol should be managed but in several ways, it also influence some aspects of the protocol design: an overall extremely positive experience” • A carrier: “architects focus on protocols, but daily operators see them through management; useful initiative to fill that hole from day 1!” • A Routing AD: “Can you fill that slot?”

More Related