Re: [Pce] draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls next steps!

Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Fri, 27 August 2021 12:02 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E10A23A0CCC; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 05:02:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AC_DIV_BONANZA=0.001, BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, 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 NrqDBUKR2M2S; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 05:01:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta7.iomartmail.com (mta7.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.157]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 440233A0CB4; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 05:01:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (vs2.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.123]) by mta7.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 17RC1QZs002792; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 13:01:26 +0100
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 719034604B; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 13:01:26 +0100 (BST)
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50A9A46048; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 13:01:26 +0100 (BST)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.224]) by vs2.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 27 Aug 2021 13:01:26 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([195.166.134.103]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 17RC1Of4028109 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 27 Aug 2021 13:01:25 +0100
Reply-To: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Gyan Mishra'" <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Dhruv Dhody'" <dd@dhruvdhody.com>, <draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls@ietf.org>, <pce@ietf.org>, "'pce-chairs'" <pce-chairs@ietf.org>
References: <CABNhwV1hby7ap3DWQzxB2aV+ggVCeuDL89SNfaMA6RH0XiC8sQ@mail.gmail.com> <064a01d77c04$59272510$0b756f30$@olddog.co.uk> <CABNhwV3YJW=g_MW5zz7zimB0SFGpgLa=Hd4GUfEAE_nVYyhV3g@mail.gmail.com> <048401d799bd$b3a51c50$1aef54f0$@olddog.co.uk> <CABNhwV1-q73PojFG75e3Jfpj2O+6GgHaiFwN=5Mt+2aFV+=+2w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABNhwV1-q73PojFG75e3Jfpj2O+6GgHaiFwN=5Mt+2aFV+=+2w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 13:01:24 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <071401d79b3b$42fe3250$c8fa96f0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0715_01D79B43.A4C46F10"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQKHa/UUVb+o28IZeZd32h3lqa/20gFweG2PAvaN3MMBiUjSAwI3DdXlqeZhNaA=
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 195.166.134.103
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.1.0.2034-8.6.0.1018-26370.007
X-TM-AS-Result: No--16.977-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--16.977-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.1.0.2034-8.6.1018-26370.007
X-TMASE-Result: 10--16.977400-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: CxmI61mtwh/xIbpQ8BhdbGyGdbpKa3ZskYC3rjkUXRJd964B0EJ1leGa gQwUd6qhBrK0xUCATVU2pgW7vPF+JoHmS1Qw23jCuoibJpHRrFnaZZnEwa4yxGtEzrC9eANpAA1 a8kaMQg4XVqnrXSbN4u12i3DKhs4tTnIqqZxiEuJ3a8B0ahMfgxJSx+7Qm/dKkD1BCejWBWwTYb tN3Gng+9GdYjC7N9BfjqTCL4OSMS88g1fEYZ3828GNvKPnBgOaPJb7oABYhT9DxRz4rfQjRsk/W Ck9r5yu4/GHVAAYz3o+tmCyKY3x4qZlwIZPBby4nVTWWiNp+v/Exmr5hqNL1h8gUk60nLoKJfoi OT0xPLR+x1wI8cc8y682TDvCU6srM3VW+dKiADpu6Bf3htu7e6m9DlJPpSC9cYYxs+5bpq/scY6 Z6vWSAERp94xwA4WqkaoTk58AQraInRC94WJcCpKLzY5ZrthjcJuzZ/5RoVZvd96Stg5JD3Vi1/ h6xWviY9LeV21tKF8mq3T8JKIMFkLeHwGL8htJ0yPriHnfv3z2X2nyY2WSCRCikl07j1ej6+pbA 1zmYaON7XioYXc1T7wqU2wRo/IFS9IQJZyKvMZoMLOoNHsM9m2h91WzhP055ff2v4XuwDDhledc p2O8n0hqH4J616uMfUq6+lSS2ZxAqiaccBzfHzZH50Xw1rLCUcH09qBGmHQlVFSTSjPtHXfEzJW 8WARr2Q8Rp6INg56LjrqEH/FzgeoMEngNNUtct2EqiyfKnSEXTcHikpg6WptNfG73nS4GkcMBOd WkURtKapJrJmv6o3gebmQ5TEp/ARqXuaonEmM0i6L0DcfAAM2bVb+7NBMCST7WciUXn4EmAuHMM ktDut934/rDAK3zGjFMngtLLWicA6dTiL984+hWGjE1rFectaHjMCrdW40ZLPAPpQ/Aldahvq6/ 7q09FPl5HsNua8A=
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/-Nn-XlHPQqTknUD-ZM9o1TKfH_c>
Subject: Re: [Pce] draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls next steps!
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 12:02:03 -0000

-22 captures it. Thanks,

Adrian

 

From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> 
Sent: 27 August 2021 06:52
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Cc: Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com>om>; draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; pce-chairs <pce-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls next steps!

 

 

Hi Adrian 

 

Agreed.  We will make it more clear.

 

Many Thanks!

 

Gyan

 

On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 10:30 AM Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk <mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk> > wrote:

Yes, thanks, Gyan.

 

I think you have captured it all, although some of the behaviours are “hidden” in assumptions in the text.

 

That is:

 

*	A PCEP speaker that offers this feature to its peer that does not support or does not wish to support the feature will not receive indication of support in the Open message, and so is expected to not use the feature.

 

*	A PCEP speaker that receives any of the objects that are part of the feature when use of the feature has not been agreed, will <do something> as described in <reference>.

 

Of course, this is “business as usual” but the reviewer of the text will not necessarily know this.

 

Cheers,

Adrian

 

From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com <mailto:hayabusagsm@gmail.com> > 
Sent: 25 August 2021 05:44
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk <mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk> 
Cc: Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com <mailto:dd@dhruvdhody.com> >; draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls@ietf.org <mailto:draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls@ietf.org> ; pce@ietf.org <mailto:pce@ietf.org> ; pce-chairs <pce-chairs@ietf.org <mailto:pce-chairs@ietf.org> >
Subject: Re: draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls next steps!

 

Hi Adrian 

 

 

See section 1.1 should have answers to your questions related to the experimental draft.

 

 <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls-21.html#section-1.1> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls-21.html#section-1.1 

 

Kind Regards 

 

Gyan

On Sun, Jul 18, 2021 at 2:40 PM Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk <mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk> > wrote:

Hi Gyan,

 

I am very much in favour of positioning this work as Experimental. 

 

It is important (as with all IETF Experiments) to capture:

-          What stops this extension “escaping" in the Internet?

-          What stops this experiment clashing with other work or harming deployed equipment? 

-          How will you judge the success or failure of the experiment, and when? 

-          What follow-up to the experiment do you propose?

 

Best,

Adrian

 

From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com <mailto:hayabusagsm@gmail.com> > 
Sent: 05 July 2021 07:43
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk <mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk> >; Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com <mailto:dd@dhruvdhody.com> >; draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls@ietf.org <mailto:draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls@ietf.org> ; pce-chairs <pce-chairs@ietf.org <mailto:pce-chairs@ietf.org> >; pce@ietf.org <mailto:pce@ietf.org> 
Subject: draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls next steps!

 

 

Dear PCE WG,

 

We presented the PCEP-LS [1] I-D [2] in the IETF 110 with a quick recap and a summary of past discussions. Some new scenarios such as PCECC, H-PCE were highlighted where the PCEP session could be reused. 

 

This is an experimental I-D with the aim to progress research and development efforts. This work is not a replacement for any of the existing mechanisms. There are specific scenarios highlighted where the reuse of PCEP sessions for this information is deemed useful. To make progress, it may not be useful to rehash the beauty context between everyone's favorite protocol :). What would be useful would be - finding out if there is still interest in this experimental work by some in the WG; are there strong technical objections for the experiment in its limited scope etc... 

 

As a next step, it would be good to define the scope of the experiments and expected output especially targeting the scalability concerns as well as impact in other protocols and the network, etc.   

 

>From the last query on this draft March 18th we received positive feedback from Aijun Wang with China Telecom mentioned that as a telco are interest in deploying in their network PCEP-LS once the Huawei implementation is ready.  Aijun pointed out in the thread that using this draft simplifies the implementation of SDN controller.  One question asked by Aijun was related to section 9.2.1 LS Capability TLV R=1 remote allowed meaning hybrid mode to provide flexibility for operators not yet using SDN (SDN-like) SBI.  For any operators already using PCEP as SDN (SDN-like) SBI, a direct PCEP session already exist between all the nodes in the network and the PCE which would be the PCECV SDN scenario in which case the R flag in the open message is set to 0.  

 

We also received positive feedback from Peter Park with telco KT regarding interest in PCEP-LS.

 

We also had feedback from Bin as they have implemented PCEP and have interest in this experimental implementation of this work.

 

I would like to poll the WG again for interest in progressing research and development efforts of this draft as experimental.  

 

As stated in the last WG poll, I would like get feedback from the WG on scope of experiments especially related to scalability concerns and impact to other protocols on the network.

 

Thanks! 

Gyan (on behalf of co-authors)

 

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/110/materials/slides-110-pce-42-pcep-ls-00.pdf

[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls/

==

 

 <http://www.verizon.com/> 

Gyan Mishra

Network Solutions Architect 

Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <mailto:gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com> 

M 301 502-1347

 

-- 

 <http://www.verizon.com/> 

Gyan Mishra

Network Solutions Architect 

Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <mailto:gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com> 

M 301 502-1347

 

-- 

 <http://www.verizon.com/> 

Gyan Mishra

Network Solutions Architect 

Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <mailto:gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com> 

M 301 502-1347

 

-- 

 <http://www.verizon.com/> 

Gyan Mishra

Network Solutions Architect 

Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <mailto:gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com> 

M 301 502-1347