RE: draft-jacquenet-ip-te-cops-01.txt

["Iliff, Tina" <Tina.Iliff@WCOM.Com>]

Yes, the distinct client-type will allow a PEP to have multiple connections
open with a PDP in order to receive various types of policy simultaneously.
This allows the PEP to "specify" exactly what it is after instead of just
blindly sending a REQ and obtaining only QoS policy.  
The PEP may have connections open with multiple PDPs; however, these
connections may not be of the same client-type.

Tina Iliff


-----Original Message-----
From: JACQUENET Christian FTRD/DMI/CAE
[mailto:christian.jacquenet@rd.francetelecom.fr]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 6:46 AM
To: 'Yacine El Mghazli'
Cc: rap@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-jacquenet-ip-te-cops-01.txt


Yacine,

I'm not sure I understand your question, but, according to section 1 of
draft-ietf-rap-pr-05.txt: 

   "In order to support a model that includes multiple PDPs 
   controlling non-overlapping areas of policy on a single PEP, the 
   client-type specified by the PEP to the PDP is unique for the area 
   of policy being managed. A single client-type for a given area of 
   policy (eg. QoS) will be used for all PIBs that exist in that 
   area.  The client should treat all the COPS-PR client-types it 
   supports as non-overlapping and independent namespaces where 
   instances MUST NOT be shared."

>From this standpoint, draft-jacquenet-ip-te-cops-01.txt considers the case
of enforcing an IP TE policy (i.e. a specific area of policy, among QoS,
security, routing, etc.), thus yielding the need for the definition of a
specific client-type that should be treated by a PEP, amongst all the
COPS-PR client-types that are currently or will be defined.

Did I answer your question?

Thank you for your comment.

Cheers,

Christian.

  

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Yacine El Mghazli [mailto:yacine.el_mghazli@alcatel.fr]
Envoyé : mardi 6 mars 2001 11:46
À : JACQUENET Christian FTRD/DMI/CAE
Cc : rap@ops.ietf.org
Objet : Re: draft-jacquenet-ip-te-cops-01.txt


Christian,

Why do you use a new client type for provisioning purposes instead of the
already existing COPS-PR one ?
What prevent you from using the normal provisioning scheme ? I'm sure you
have any good reason but I can't get it, I'm not a routing/TE expert !
Thanx
Yacine

----- Original Message -----
From: "JACQUENET Christian FTRD/DMI/CAE"
<christian.jacquenet@rd.francetelecom.fr>
To: "'Andrew Smith (co-chair rap)'" <ah_smith@pacbell.net>; "'Mark Stevens
(co-chair rap)'" <mstevens@ellacoya.com>
Cc: <rap@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 11:17 AM
Subject: draft-jacquenet-ip-te-cops-01.txt


> Dear all,
>
> FYI: A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
>
>
> Title : A COPS client-type for IP traffic engineering
> Author(s) : C. Jacquenet
> Filename : draft-jacquenet-ip-te-cops-01.txt
> Pages : 14
> Date : 01-Mar-01
>
> This draft specifies a COPS (Common Open Policy Service, [2])client-
> type designed for the enforcement of IP Traffic Engineering (IP TE)
> policies within IP networks. The usage of this IP TE COPS client-type
> is based upon the activation of the COPS protocol for policy
> provisioning purposes (COPS-PR, [3]).
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jacquenet-ip-te-cops-01.txt
>
> Depending on the current rap agenda for the Minneapolis meeting, would it
be
> possible to get allocated a 10-minute slot for a presentation of this
draft?
>
> Comments on this spec are warmly welcome.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Christian.
>
>
>