[Idr] Questions on draft-ietf-idr-te-lsp-distribution-01

[Olivier Dugeon <[e-mail]>]

Dear authors,

After reading and analysis your draft, I have some questions related to 
PCEand Segment Routing for the LSP State Information, in particular on 
the list of TE LSP Objects.

a) Which routerwill report LSP State Information ? Only the LER, or all 
routers that are located on the path followed by the MPLS-TE LSP ?

b) Is Path Key SubObject is implicitly part of ERO / RRO in your draft? 
if yes, do you think it is pertinent to mention it (through RFC number 
or explicitly) ? If not, do you think it is pertinent to add it ?

c)IGP-TE metric have been extended recently (see 
draft-ietf-te-metric-extensions, draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions) 
with the possibility to distribute them with BGP-LS (see 
draft-ietf-idr-te-pm-bgp). Do you think it is feasible for the LER to 
compute the cumulative delay, jitter and loss along the path from the 
IGP-TE metrics it learn from the IGP-TE, and then, distribute the result 
through BGP-LS ? In this case, the TE Metric Object in the objects list 
of LSP State Information should be extended with the Metric Extensions, 
at least, delay, jitter and loss.

d) The draft is related to MPLS-TE LSP and RSVP-TE, but I think it could 
be also suitable for path composed by segment. So, do you intend to add 
SR-ERO, and perhaps SR-RRO SubObjects (see 
draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-00.txt), in the objects listfor the LSP 
State Informationwhen it is composed by Segment ID or do you think it is 
preferable to left them for another draft devoted specifically to 
Segment Routing?

e) In case of adding Segment Routing ERO/RRO, what could be envisage for 
the Tunnel ID (which is allocated by RSVP-TE) ? and for the Protocol-ID 
which is linked to RSVP-TE? as there is nodedicated signalling in 
Segment Routing. This information could be provided localy by the 
router, but combined with the Router ID, for example, in order to be unique.

Regards,

Olivier




<mailto:[e-mail]>