Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-domain-sequence

[Julien Meuric <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

How about adding a sentence reminding that "A" stands for "Autonomous"? 
E.g., "policies may apply at AS boundaries and Area IDs after AS change 
may be pruned/ignored."

Regard,

Julien


Nov. 02, 2015 - [e-mail]:
> Hi All,
>
> How is this -
>
>     IGP Area subobjects in the XRO are local to the current AS.  In case
>     of multi-AS path computation to exclude an IGP area in a different
>     AS, IGP Area subobject should be part of Explicit Exclusion Route
>     Subobject (EXRS) in the IRO to specify the AS in which the IGP area
>     is to be excluded.
>
> I have attached the working copy diff for easy reference.
>
> Regards,
> Dhruv
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dhruv Dhody
>> Sent: 02 November 2015 00:33
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Sorry for delay in replying, let me try to send you proposed text
>> tomorrow as per Julien's suggestion!
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dhruv
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Julien Meuric [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: 31 October 2015 00:35
>>>
>>> Hi Joel, hi Dhruv,
>>>
>>> Focusing on the Area ID issue, I'd support adding some text along
>> with
>>> Dhruv's proposal, but stricter (not just deferring to
>>> "implementation's feeling"). I.e., Area IDs are AS-specific and
>>> mustn't cross AS borders; AS-local Area IDs may be used inside an AS
>>> (without restricting to the origin AS).
>>>
>>> See you in Yokohama,
>>>
>>> Julien
>>>
>>>
>>> Oct. 30, 2015 - [e-mail]:
>>>>>           Given that Exclude Route Objects are not interleaved with
>>>>>      include Objects, is there a restriction that Area IDs may only
>>> be
>>>>>      excluded from paths within a single AS?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [Dhruv]: I guess this would depend on the PCE behavior during
>>>>> inter-AS path computation i.e. PCEmay feel the area id subobjectis
>>>>> irreleventand strips from the XRO before sending the request to
>>>>> another PCE ​ or it might keep it intact.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This would be in s
>>>>> ​pi​
>>>>> ritof RFC 4874 where
>>>>> ​-
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The number of subobjects to be avoided, specified in the
>>>>>      signaled XRO, may be constant throughout the whole path setup,
>>> or the
>>>>>      subobjects to be avoided may be removed from the XRO as they
>>> become
>>>>>      irrelevant in the subsequent hops of the path setup.
>>>>>
>>>>> We can always
>>>>> ​use
>>>>> EXRS in IRO specify the intentions much more clearly.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you agree, we can work on some text to add.
>>>>
>>>> I still can not see how the Excluded Route Object with an Area ID
>>> will
>>>> work.  How will a PCE which receives such a request know what AS it
>>>> applies to?  It works fine if the whole path is within one AS.  But
>>> if
>>>> this is a multi-AS request, the AS elements, if present at all, are
>>> in
>>>> the IRO.
>>>> The most obvious approach would be to declare that the PCE shall
>>>> assume that all Area ID exclusions apply to the origin AS.