Re: [OPSAWG] [OPS-AREA] Present day reality of COPS-PR

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca at avaya.com>]

(moving the discussion to OPSAWG). 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ops-area-bounces at ietf.org 
> [mailto:ops-area-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of David Harrington
> 
> > 
> > - there are few, if any, significant deployments.
> > 
> > AFAIK, there is minimal commercial or open source support.
> 
> I have not been able to research these claims, but I am told 
> that COPS-PR is actually in use in a number of places. Here 
> are some of the claims I have heard:
> 
> 1) Juniper uses COPS-PR for their resource allocation, using 
> both push and pull methods, at least in the access and 
> aggregation network. 
> 2) COPS-PR may be deployed in the Verizon FIOS (FTTH) access 
> network in the US.
> 3) COPS-PR may be deployed in the FT-Orange IPTV access network in UK.
> 4) Comcast uses a mix of COPS and COPS-PR in cable TV video 
> QoS control. 
> 5) COPS-PR is in DOCSIS 1.0 QoS, which may still be used in 
> cable deployments
> 6) Huawei uses both COPS and COPS-PR in their Quidway RM9000 
> Resource Manager and their Multi-Service Control Gateway 
> solution (public documents show COPS, but I have not found 
> explicit mention of COPS-PR; I am checking further)
> 7) ITU-T has a proposal being considered that is based on COPS-PR
> 
> Searching the Web I found some additional information that 
> might bear further research (many items have no associated dates):
> 8) MultiService Forum has an Implementation Agreement for 
> Dynamic Policy Control Using COPS-PR (2005) 
> http://www.msforum.org/techinfo/approved/MSF-IA-COPS-PR.001-FINAL.pdf
> 9) IEEE Xplore has a paper that apparently was presented at 
> ICT 2008 comparing the performance of COPS-PR and Netconf. 
> The paper might identify some equipment that has COPS-PR support.
> 10) A 2006 paper was published in the Proceedings of the IEEE 
> International Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems 
> and Networks. The paper considers substituting Netconf and/or 
> SOAP for COPS-PR
> 11) I found discussion of COPS-PR in JUNOSe and the SAE on 
> the web, apparently for the SDX line (dated 2008). Was this 
> from the Juniper acquisition of netscreen and neoteris?
> 12) Sejong University apparently has developed a COPS-PR lite
> http://ietcom.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/E90-B/11/3024
> 13) EION has an implementation
> http://www.eion.com/protocols/protocols_traffic_cops.html
> 14) Cisco Catalyst has an implementation
> 15) Wireshark apparently implements it
> 16) ACSE Networks implements COPS-PR in their NeuTrans product line
> 17) ZNYX Networks implements COPS-PR in the ZX4900
> 18) libsmi implemented it
> 19) Operax AB implemented it
> 20) MIB Smithy implemented it
> 21) GridNet has implemented it in its products for managing utility
> (power) grids
> 22) GE apparently embeds the GridNet implementation in its 
> WiMax SmartMeter and SmartGrid Router family of products
> 23) COPS-PR has been the subject of a tremendous number of 
> academic papers
> 

There claims need to be examined carefully. We need to differentiate
between academic papers, code implementation and deployment. It is
probably true that a number of open source packages and tools
implemented COPS-PR after it was put on standards track, but the
question is to what extent this code was also used and deployed. Same
for the vendors implementations - was COPS-PR deployed and how?  In the
absence of standards PIBs I suspect that the majority or all the
deployments use one vendor tools and agents, but we need to give enough
time for these vendors to step ahead and explain in case
interoperability is impacted by the proposed standards action. 

Dan