[Pce] Review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Mon, 25 March 2019 16:32 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 E551B120411; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 09:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 Ff-B1NTBA7kd; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 09:32:15 -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 96FC2120416; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 09:32:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (vs1.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.121]) by mta7.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x2PGWCpc002910; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 16:32:12 GMT
Received: from vs1.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3491C22040; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 16:32:12 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.249]) by vs1.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EB952203A; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 16:32:12 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V (155.254.broadband5.iol.cz [88.100.254.155]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x2PGW6VC015305 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 25 Mar 2019 16:32:11 GMT
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce@ietf.org
Cc: pce@ietf.org
References:
In-Reply-To:
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 16:32:05 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <03d201d4e328$4bc1b510$e3451f30$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Content-Language: en-gb
Thread-Index: AdTfOGIvwXIBuQBOScqWQ01cW0wMfgD7w8NQ
X-Originating-IP: 88.100.254.155
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-24512.001
X-TM-AS-Result: No--18.591-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--18.591-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-24512.001
X-TMASE-Result: 10--18.591300-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 1G/3DZEt2zGNw1/pVxSOdrp2HEZ4IFgao4jW7zSDg9nagsZM0qVv13FD 0I0jlEDdF16bSyysW++sSBFSvpqaU8LE8efKowoD2Hdvv/MGE3US12tj9Zvd8zE4yJtMp5hr2d8 mtRIRsUOqRU2sf4OufLrxtp7kf93VhOhmpQI70nmzI1v7J4hECilayzmQ9QV0zAdJD7JeNMOjNI Y2f3R+9Q55JxecDIsaoQzmX4oFrF1BEeXXYJxA3n9NanCUA4Veoh0OpwQli5EA9Tpq5qSGJtSOC P9jQZmC2Bzgv79yUtcW9P3I5+C6DXBUeTqf+P8EliwpJdZauwchotH7bEpEMqNIF3ryQt73YID9 Y+Lh/Txv3MjL7O2g2e/D3Q9+3uMcecQgICqoWUFPuMJi/ZAk8WTkYBruSle3Z5yuplze9ptRlaQ 7m7aP9XwT7b+NFu8fEIO2kSgR31kXomoYx2wKDuS5t8CJHaljIgHLa9slyWLOy04LRuwZITlfbB u0/EGBpM+SgKz9+WLy3NHUi0it5RnsS71Oo/HwhsE+u3nnCfAJDfFL7Mvp7VpbYq2f4jz+jcTvI EzCJBCjXupII2mqtuJR8nVOeqFwEd0YyW6tLblWgOVCl/hN1YyOql5H9hUNnNgWxWMgxzJ1gnek L1c23sFRM7Fec6lGc+WVPHWeR3BZJq170V074MOvQCMFyZ9Gbd6rGhWOAwTdeAKnvBMxfHMuLKl M8AY7+5p4wMh0gq/0MXQJxjyP0h3CyRF8RETzz5rIW0RbS5gecJFiVRR1ghxBeDNpVcRynlwc2g baAF7/9B88ESAspoYj9NPA4+LITX7PJ/OU3vL+xOhjarOnHis3zPQeiEbe+gtHj7OwNO2FR9Hau 8GO7gP90fJP9eHt
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/-lsEMyHNMIJhpqHXez8i-pOo4mA>
Subject: [Pce] Review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-hpce
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: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 16:32:19 -0000
Hi, Good afternoon. My name is Adrian and I'll be your Document Shepherd for this journey. As this draft is progressing through working group last call, I thought I would do my review now and save a little time later. These comments may seem a little negative, but I hope you can address them with small changes. Thanks, Adrian === Abstract s/deployment of Stateful PCE(s)/deployment of Stateful PCEs/ --- Section 1 para 1 needs a reference to 5440 --- 1. s/for stateful PCE(s) in/for stateful PCEs in the/ --- 1. The initial section of the document focuses on end to end (E2E) inter-domain TE LSP. Section 3.3.1 describe the operations for the Per Domain LSP that could be stitched. Maybe... Sections 3.1 and 3.2 focus on end to end (E2E) inter-domain TE LSPa. Section 3.3.1 describes the operations for stitching Per Domain LSPs. --- I am not certain that you need to use upper case terms in this document. I found "SHOULD" in sections 6 and 7.2, and "MAY" twice in seciton 3.1 and once in section 3.3.1. Also "RECOMMENDED" in section 6. Is this really appropriate in a document that is describing an approach, not specifying bits on the wire or implementation behavior? That would allow you to dispose of section 1.1 and the two references. --- Section 3 While the terms PE and CE are defined and used unambiguously, I suspect that they will cause some confusion because they are such well known terms in networking. --- 3. All PCE types herein (i.e., PE or CE) are assumed to be 'stateful PCE'. Is it not plausible to have a stateless C-PCE working with a stateful P-PCE? I think that the relationship of child to parent is similar to the relationship of PCC to PCE, but when we talk about a stateful PCE we don't also talk about a stateful PCC. So when you say that the C-PCE must be stateful, you are necessarily talking about its relationship with its PCCs. If you are determined to limit the scope of this document to PCE hierarchies where both the parent and child are stateful (you are allowed to make this choice if that's what the WG wants) then you need to make this clear in the Abstract and Introduction. --- Am I confused about delegation? You have... The P-PCE has no information about the content of the child domains. Clearly the C-PCE will report the path of the LSP (segment) that crosses the domain for which it is responsible, but how can the P-PCE make any change to that LSP without visibility into the child domain? But you go on to talk about delegation as if it could work: such as... LSP Control Delegation (CE-PE,PE-CE): a C-PCE grants to the P-PCE the right to update LSP attributes on one or more LSPs When you draw the similarity between PCC-PCE and C-PCE-P-PCE delegation as... Note that this hierarchy is recursive and thus a Label Switching Router (LSR), as a PCC could delegate the control to a PCE, which may delegate to its parent, which may further delegate it to its parent (if it exist or needed). Similarly update operations could also be applied recursively. ... I think that you miss that the PCC and PCE can both see the TED, but the C-PCE and P-PCE have very different visibility into the domain. --- 3. Just clarity... OLD [I-D.ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions] defines the H-PCE capability TLV that should be used in the OPEN message to advertise the H-PCE capability. [RFC8231] defines the stateful PCE capability TLV. The presence of both TLVs represent the support for stateful H-PCE operations as described in this document. NEW [I-D.ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions] defines the H-PCE Capability TLV that is used in the OPEN message to advertise the H-PCE capability. [RFC8231] defines the Stateful PCE Capability TLV used in the OPEN message to indicate stateful support. The presence of both TLVs in an OPEN message indicates the support for stateful H-PCE operations as described in this document. END --- 3. I feel that this paragraph is confusing. I think the referenced draft also needs some work on the terms stateful and synchronization, but we can focus on the document at hand. OLD [I-D.litkowski-pce-state-sync] describes the procedures to allow a stateful communication between PCEs for various use-cases. The procedures and extensions as described in Section 3 of [I-D.litkowski-pce-state-sync] are also applicable to Child and Parent PCE communication. The SPEAKER-IDENTITY-TLV (defined in [RFC8232]) is included in the LSP object to identify the Ingress (PCC). The PLSP-ID used in the forwarded PCRpt by the C-PCE to P-PCE is same as the original one used by the PCC. NEW [I-D.litkowski-pce-state-sync] describes the procedures to allow communication between stateful PCEs that serve the same domain. The procedures and extensions as described in Section 3 of [I-D.litkowski-pce-state-sync] are also applicable to Child and Parent PCE communication. The SPEAKER-IDENTITY-TLV (defined in [RFC8232]) is included in the LSP object to identify the Ingress (PCC). The PLSP-ID used in the forwarded PCRpt by the C-PCE to P-PCE is same as the original one used by the PCC. END However, this has made [I-D.litkowski-pce-state-sync] a normative reference. I suspect you don't want to go there. That will mean you need to write the normative text here (which may be a bit more of a rewrite) and simply add... Similar procedures are used in [I-D.litkowski-pce-state-sync] to synchronize state between stateful PCEs that serve the same domain. Furthermore, the term "Ingress" in unclear. You probably do not mean the ingress of the LSP, per se. You probably mean the ingress of the LSP in the domain that the C-PCE serves. You also have the term "ingress PCE" (in 3.1) which is such a useful term that you should probably call it out with a definition. --- 3.1 s/applicable to PCEP session/applicable to a PCEP session/ --- 3.1 OLD Taking the sample hierarchical domain topology example from [RFC6805] as the reference topology for the entirety of this document. NEW We use the sample hierarchical domain topology example from [RFC6805] as the reference topology for the entirety of this document. It is shown in Figure 1. END --- 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.3.1 It is confusing to have steps 1 to 11 as per 6805 and then introduce new steps 1 to 4 in 3.1. We need to: - not confuse these with steps 1 to 4 of 6805 - understand where in the sequence the steps are preformed Furthermore, "initial" steps 1 to 8 are introduced in 3.2. Are these in place of steps 1 to 4 in 3.1 or in addition? And where in the sequence are they performed? How do they relate to steps 1 to 8 of 6805. There is some slightly better description in 3.2, but only steps 1 and 2 seem to be truly "initial". It all needs some more clarity. By the time I got to 3.3.1 I really couldn't work out the steps at all. --- 3.2 OLD To update an LSP, a PCE send to the PCC, an LSP Update Request using a PCUpd message. NEW To update an LSP, a PCE sends an LSP Update Request to the PCC using a PCUpd message. END --- 3.3. PCE Initiation Operation Maybe... 3.3. PCE Initiation of LSPs --- 4.1 How about this for a slightly tidier figure 2? +----------+ | Parent | /| PCE | / +----------+ / / Stateful / / P-PCE / / / / Stateful+-----+ / / C-PCE | PCE |/ / Hi | Hi | / +-----+ / +---+ +---+ / +---+ +---+ + LSR +--+ LSR +........................+ LSR +--+ LSR + + H1 + + H2 + / + H3 + + H4 + +---+ +---+\ +-----+/ /+---+ +---+ \ | PCE | / \ | Lo | / Stateful \ +-----+ / C-PCE \ / Lo \+---+ +---+/ + LSR +--+ LSR + + L1 + + L2 + +---+ +---+ --- 4.1 You have... All procedures described in Section 3 are applicable to inter-layer path setup as well. I wonder if you want to explain that the layers are considered as separate domains. --- 4.2 OLD [RFC8453] describes framework for Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN), where each Provisioning Network Controller (PNC) is equivalent to C-PCE and P-PCE is the Multi-Domain Service Coordinator (MDSC). The Per domain stitched LSP as per the Hierarchical PCE architecture described in Section 3.3.1 and Section 4.1 is well suited for ACTN. NEW [RFC8453] describes a framework for the Abstraction and Control of TE Networks (ACTN), where each Provisioning Network Controller (PNC) is equivalent to a C-PCE, and the P-PCE is the Multi-Domain Service Coordinator (MDSC). The Per Domain stitched LSP as per the Hierarchical PCE architecture described in Section 3.3.1 and Section 4.1 is well suited for ACTN. END --- 4.2 OLD In ACTN framework, Customer Network Controller (CNC) can request the MDSC to check if there is a possibility to meet Virtual Network (VN) requirements (before requesting for VN provision). The H-PCE architecture as described in [RFC6805] can supports via the use of PCReq and PCRep messages between the P-PCE and C-PCEs. NEW In the ACTN framework, a Customer Network Controller (CNC) can request the MDSC to check whether there is a possibility to meet Virtual Network (VN) requirements before requesting for the VN to be provisioned. The H-PCE architecture as described in [RFC6805] can support this function using PCReq and PCRep messages between the P-PCE and C-PCEs. END --- 5.1 I think you need to rephrase this section. I don't think there is any clear meaning to an LSP being involved in H-PCE. But some of this issue can't be resolved until you have worked out what it is that a stateful H-PCE actually does. As previously noted, it would not appear to have access to the per-domain TEDs, so what is it doing with an LSP that is reported or delegated to it? Given what 5.2 says, reporting LSPs (not for delegation, but simply reporting them) seems entirely pointless! --- I noticed that the Table of Contents doesn't match the actual sections starting from Section 5. Possibly sections 4 and 5 were supposed to be merged --- 6. says The LSP state in the PCRpt message SHOULD continue to use this. Can you explain when a PCRpt might deviate from this "SHOULD"? --- 6. Thus securing the PCEP session (between the P-PCE and the C-PCE) using mechanism like TCP Authentication Option (TCP-AO) [RFC5925] or Transport Layer Security (TLS) [RFC8253] is RECOMMENDED. What does 'like' mean? Is there anything specific you have in mind? --- You have I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-yang in your references section, but no actual reference to it. --- A number of references need to be promoted to Normative consistent with how you have used them in this document. RFC 4655 RFC 5520 RFC 5925 RFC 8232 RFC 8253 I-D.litkowski-pce-state-sync I-D.ietf-pce-hierarchy-extensions I-D.dugeon-pce-stateful-interdomain