Re: [Idr] [Teas] draft-chen-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp was just discussed ///Re: Associating a TE Tunnel/Policy with an NRP

Hi Pavan,

That thread seems to have escaped my attention.

Hi Ran,

Based on Pavan's description below, I understand that the NRP is in the
form of a topology constraint for the path computation of the SR Policy.
Can you or your co-authors confirm or correct me? I am not able to
precisely find this in the draft-ietf-teas-ns-ip-mpls.

I assume that the constraints associated with the NRP are specified in
terms of underlying IGP mechanisms (e.g., MT or FlexAlgo) or TE constraint
(e.g., link affinities/color, etc.)?

So then, is NRP essentially a "template" or a "profile" for path
constraints?

I am trying to understand these details to see if we can use existing
mechanisms in the protocols over introducing new ones.

Thanks,
Ketan

On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 11:39 AM Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Ran, Ketan,
> The only NRP specific protocol extension that has been endorsed by TEAS so
> far is the one related to associating a TE Tunnel/Policy with an NRP. The
> motivation behind this association is to ensure that the TE paths are
> computed, placed and maintained within the topology associated with the
> specified NRP. There was no objection raised by the WG for such an
> extension (defined in PCEP or BGP). It is my understanding that
> ietf-idr-sr-policy-nrp was adopted in IDR based on this guidance.
>
> Since, draft-chen-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp is being positioned as a
> companion document for ietf-idr-sr-policy-nrp (for policy state
> reporting), the same guidance as earlier should apply to this document
> (imho).
>
>
> TEAS WG,
>
> Please provide feedback on the draft.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> -Pavan
>
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 9:57 AM <chen.ran@zte.com.cn> wrote:
>
>> Hi ketan,
>>
>> NRP-related protocol extensions were previously discussed in the TEAS WG. The
>> inline email is for the TEAS WG to discuss protocol extensions for
>> associating a TE Tunnel/Policy with an NRP.  Have your concerns been
>> resolved?
>>
>>
>> To TEAS chairs and WG,
>>
>> we have done the presentations in IDR WG  for
>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp/>
>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp/>
>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp/>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-idr-bgp-ls-sr-policy-nrp/ .
>> This document defines a new TLV which enable the headed to report the
>> configuration and the states the NRP which the SR Policy candidate path is
>> associated with.
>>
>> and in the new version of the draft:
>>
>>    -
>>
>>    Update the "Scalability Considerations" section to be consistent with
>>    draft-ietf-idr-sr-policy-nrp-00.
>>
>> We would like to request for  IDR WG adoption. Any comments are welcome.
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Ran
>>
>>
>> Original
>> *From: *VishnuPavanBeeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
>> *To: *adrian@olddog.co.uk <adrian@olddog.co.uk>;
>> *Cc: *TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>;
>> *Date: *2023年12月11日 00:53
>> *Subject: **Re: [Teas] Associating a TE Tunnel/Policy with an NRP*
>> _______________________________________________
>> Teas mailing list
>> Teas@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>>
>> There have been no objections (on the list or during the WG session) to
>> defining protocol extensions for associating a TE Tunnel/Policy with an
>> NRP.
>>
>> Please do note that the relevant protocol (BGP, PCEP) extensions would be
>> discussed and progressed in other WGs.
>> Regards,
>> -Pavan (on behalf of the co-chairs)
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 3:00 PM Vishnu Pavan Beeram <
>> vishnupavan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Just realized that this thread was left hanging.
>>>
>>> For all NRP specific protocol extension documents, the request from the
>>> TEAS WG chairs is the the following (nothing more, nothing less):
>>>
>>>    -
>>>
>>>    Add a “Scalability Considerations” section.
>>>    -
>>>
>>>    Keep the TEAS WG updated about the progress of the document
>>>    (especially during WG adoption and WGLC)
>>>
>>>
>>> With regards to draft-dong-idr-sr-policy-nrp for which this thread was
>>> initiated, it is on the agenda in today's WG session. The expectation is
>>> that this would trigger a discussion on the utility of the protocol
>>> extension defined in this draft.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> -Pavan
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 7:34 PM Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Pavan,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for starting this thread. It’s a fine thing to talk about.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don’t think the TEAS working group would be in a position to stop
>>>> other working groups picking up and working on protocol extensions that
>>>> they think are necessary. But it might be good to have an overview
>>>> perspective of how NRPs might be constructed in different protocol
>>>> environments so that those working groups can go ahead and make the
>>>> protocol changes with confidence.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It’s probable that TEAS was a bit premature adopting
>>>> draft-ietf-teas-ns-ip-mpls while other working groups were holding back
>>>> waiting for the slicing framework to stabilise and be approved for
>>>> publication. But we don’t need to go there. What is important now is to
>>>> recognise that it is open for people to work out how they want to develop
>>>> solutions to support NRPs. TEAS can certainly coordinate that work, but I
>>>> don’t think it can constrain it because slicing is a broad concept and
>>>> there are plenty of protocols and service architectures that can deliver
>>>> “slices.”
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What do you propose (maybe you could put your hat back on?) as a way
>>>> that we could act to coordinate this work?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Adrian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Teas <teas-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Vishnu Pavan Beeram
>>>> *Sent:* 28 September 2023 14:11
>>>> *To:* TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
>>>> *Subject:* [Teas] Associating a TE Tunnel/Policy with an NRP
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are a couple of control-plane protocol extension documents that
>>>> have been proposed outside TEAS WG for associating a TE Tunnel/Policy with
>>>> an NRP.
>>>>
>>>>    -
>>>>
>>>>    draft-dong-idr-sr-policy-nrp proposes extensions to BGP for
>>>>    associating an SR policy with an NRP
>>>>    -
>>>>
>>>>    draft-dong-pce-pcep-nrp proposes extensions to PCEP for associating
>>>>    a TE LSP with an NRP
>>>>
>>>> The motivation behind this association is to ensure that the TE paths
>>>> are computed, placed and maintained within the topology associated with the
>>>> specified NRP (discussed briefly in draft-ietf-teas-ns-ip-mpls).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We have had some discussion/debate in the past in TEAS on whether or
>>>> not there should be any NRP specific control-plane protocol extensions
>>>> defined at all. Most of that debate has been focused around extensions to
>>>> link-state protocols. AFAIR, we (in TEAS) haven't discussed the specific
>>>> type of protocol extension discussed in the aforementioned drafts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm starting this thread to get some feedback from the WG on this
>>>> specific type of protocol extension.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> - Pavan (as a WG contributor)
>>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Teas mailing list
>> Teas@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>>
>