Re: [Pce] Review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-18

Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com> Tue, 11 April 2017 15:00 UTC

Return-Path: <julien.meuric@orange.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 168751293DF; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 08:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.534
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.534 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dDO4i3LbfIEa; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 08:00:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r-mail1.rd.orange.com (r-mail1.rd.orange.com [217.108.152.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7B1112EA95; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 08:00:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r-mail1.rd.orange.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 62CDFA44270; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 17:00:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from FTRDCH01.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.194.32.11]) by r-mail1.rd.orange.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4730CA4426F; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 17:00:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.193.71.173] (10.193.71.173) by FTRDCH01.rd.francetelecom.fr (10.194.32.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.319.2; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 17:00:23 +0200
Subject: Re: [Pce] Review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-18
To: Jonathan Hardwick <Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com>, Lionel Morand <lionel.morand@orange.com>, "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>
References: <148965756308.14230.13426886469262710918@ietfa.amsl.com> <BY2PR0201MB1910B9060DF50A938DC05D6984000@BY2PR0201MB1910.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
CC: "draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce.all@ietf.org>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
From: Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com>
Organization: Orange
Message-ID: <2ff156bc-c198-80fe-eccf-b45b6db978df@orange.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 17:00:23 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BY2PR0201MB1910B9060DF50A938DC05D6984000@BY2PR0201MB1910.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ifk5QKjhXIZWbISjRW_p2vDkiAY>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 15:00:29 -0000

Jon, Lionel,

I believe Lionel got confused by the wording introduced in RFC 8051:
- no report, no update means stateless PCE;
- report, no update means passive stateful PCE;
- report and update means active (stateful) PCE.

More details below, [JM].

Thanks for the work,

Julien


Apr. 11, 2017 - Jonathan.Hardwick@metaswitch.com:
> =====
> 
> [LM] active/passive mode are not  advertized in PCEP. s/if active 
> stateful PCE capability was not advertised/if stateful PCE
> capability was not advertised
> 
> Jon> ACK
> 
> =====
[JM] NACK! ;-)
Actually, the passive mode is advertised using the
Stateful-capability-object TLV with the U bit unset, the active mode by
setting the U bit.

> =====
> 
> Note that even if the update capability has not been advertised, a 
> PCE can still accept LSP Status Reports from a PCC and build and 
> maintain an up to date view of the state of the PCC's LSPs.
> 
> [LM] I don't undersand. Is it not in contradiction with
> 
> "If the PCEP Speaker on the PCE supports the extensions of this
> draft but did not advertise this capability, then upon receipt of a
> PCRpt message from the PCC, it MUST generate a PCErr with error- type
> 19 (Invalid Operation), error-value 5 (Attempted LSP State Report if
>  active stateful PCE capability was not advertised) (see Section
> 8.5) and it SHOULD terminate the PCEP session."
> 
> Or does it mean that there is another way than PCRpt message for the
>  PCC to send LSP status reports to the PCE?
> 
> Jon> ACK.  I think that the statement in the draft is bogus and I 
> propose to delete this sentence from it.
> 
> =====
[JM] I do not think that the text is bogus:
- case 1: no advertised capability on update but advertised on report
(i.e. passive stateful) => no error message;
- case 2: no advertised capability on update nor report (i.e. stateless)
=> error.

> =====
> 
> [LM] Would it be useful to discover (using another TLV) whether the 
> PCE is an active/passive stateful PCE, as in IGP-based capabilities 
> discovery mechanism?
> 
> Jon> This can be inferred immediately from the U flag in the 
> STATEFUL-PCE-CAPABILITY TLV.  Passive mode is synonymous with not 
> sending / handling PCUpd messages.
> 
> =====
[JM] The mechanism is there, but section 7.1.1 may deserve an explicit
use of the "passive/active" terms, to make sure the capability
terminology is aligned with the vocabulary in the IGP section.