[Pce] 答复: Re: A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs.

[[e-mail]]

Hi Dhruv,


I agree PCInitiate message including the ASSOCIATION Object may create a 
new LSP.

But it still need to create bi-directional LSP by two messages.

In some scenario, like PTN, we need to establish a bi-directional LSP by 
one message of a PCE request.

In my opinion, this is the requirement to create a bi-directional LSP by a 
 PCInitiate message.


Thanks,
Quan



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] 

Re: [Pce] A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: "xiong.quan at zte.com.cn" <xiong.quan at zte.com.cn>, 
"draft-barth-pce-association-bidir at ietf.org" 
<draft-barth-pce-association-bidir at ietf.org> 
Subject: Re: [Pce] A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs. 
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody at huawei.com> 
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:21:15 +0000 
Accept-language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US 
Archived-at: <
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/Vx2UV03boBu2HHvP4qWETgxHr90> 
Cc: "edward.crabbe at gmail.com" <edward.crabbe at gmail.com>, "inaminei 
at google.com" <inaminei at google.com>, "msiva at cisco.com" <msiva at 
cisco.com>, "robert.varga at pantheon.tech" <robert.varga at 
pantheon.tech>, "pce at ietf.org" <pce at ietf.org>, "hu.fangwei at 
relay.zte.com.cn" <hu.fangwei at relay.zte.com.cn>, "julien.meuric at 
orange.com" <julien.meuric at orange.com>, "jonathan.hardwick at 
metaswitch.com" <jonathan.hardwick at metaswitch.com> 
Delivered-to: pce at ietfa.amsl.com 
In-reply-to: 
<[e-mail]> 
List-archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/> 
List-help: <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=help> 
List-id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org> 
List-post: <mailto:[e-mail]> 
List-subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <
mailto:[e-mail]?subject=subscribe> 
List-unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, <
mailto:[e-mail]?subject=unsubscribe> 
References: 
<[e-mail]> 
Thread-index: AQHTlB0CgKqVuxcwbkmqwLTk/0dyLaOBTApQ 
Thread-topic: [Pce] A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Quan, 

 

As per [1]: 
       A PCE initiating a new LSP, can include the association group
   information.  This is done by including the ASSOCIATION Object in a

   PCInitiate message. 

 

So when a new LSP is created by PCE, you could still indicate the 
association. The association is not limited to existing LSPs. 

 

Hope this helps! Let me know if I understood your question correctly! 

 

Regards,

Dhruv

 

[1] 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-association-group-04#section-5.2.1

 

From: xiong.quan at zte.com.cn [mailto:xiong.quan at zte.com.cn] 
Sent: 23 January 2018 13:07
To: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody at huawei.com>; 
draft-barth-pce-association-bidir at ietf.org
Cc: edward.crabbe at gmail.com; inaminei at google.com; msiva at 
cisco.com; robert.varga at pantheon.tech; pce at ietf.org; hu.fangwei at 
relay.zte.com.cn; julien.meuric at orange.com; jonathan.hardwick at 
metaswitch.com
Subject: Re: [Pce] A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs.

 

Hi Dhruv, 


Thank you for the reply!O(∩_∩)O~ 

I agree two created PCE-initiated LSPs may be associated by ASSOCIATION 
object as discussed in draft-barth-pce-association-bidir. 

But if there is no LSP existed, how to request a bi-directional TE LSP 
from PCE in PCE initiated operation? 


Quan Xiong 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] 

Re: [Pce] A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


To: "xiong.quan at zte.com.cn" <xiong.quan at zte.com.cn>, "edward.crabbe 
at gmail.com" <edward.crabbe at gmail.com>, "inaminei at google.com" 
<inaminei at google.com>, "msiva at cisco.com" <msiva at cisco.com>, 
"robert.varga at pantheon.tech" <robert.varga at pantheon.tech> 
Subject: Re: [Pce] A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs. 
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody at huawei.com> 
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:28:27 +0000 
Accept-language: en-GB, en-US 
Archived-at: <
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/ryZRIHK4zGoqSAsxMFQetTWDjbY> 
Cc: "hu.fangwei at relay.zte.com.cn" <hu.fangwei at relay.zte.com.cn>, 
"pce at ietf.org" <pce at ietf.org>, "draft-barth-pce-association-bidir at 
ietf.org" <draft-barth-pce-association-bidir at ietf.org> 
Delivered-to: pce at ietfa.amsl.com 
In-reply-to: <OF60BFF49D.2F7F81DC-ON48258217.0026FFA8-4825821E.000BA102 at 
zte.com.cn> 
List-archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/> 
List-help: <mailto:pce-request at ietf.org?subject=help> 
List-id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org> 
List-post: <mailto:pce at ietf.org> 
List-subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <
mailto:pce-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe> 
List-unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, <
mailto:pce-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> 
References: <OF60BFF49D.2F7F81DC-ON48258217.0026FFA8-4825821E.000BA102 at 
zte.com.cn> 
Thread-index: AQHTk+76gKqVuxcwbkmqwLTk/0dyLaOAy0lA 
Thread-topic: [Pce] A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Hi Quan, 

 

Check out -  
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-barth-pce-association-bidir/ 

Authors are in cc, if you need to have further discussion! 

 

Thanks! 

Dhruv 

 

From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of xiong.quan at 
zte.com.cn 
Sent: 23 January 2018 07:37 
To: edward.crabbe at gmail.com; inaminei at google.com; msiva at 
cisco.com; robert.varga at pantheon.tech 
Cc: hu.fangwei at relay.zte.com.cn; pce at ietf.org 
Subject: [Pce] A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs. 

 

Hi all, 


I encountered a problem as following shown.O(∩_∩)O~ 

As defined in RFC5440,the PCC-initiated LSPs creation uses the B bit in RP 
object of PCReq message to indicate the direction of the TE LSP. 
When set, the PCC requests a bi-directional TE LSP and when cleared, the 
TE LSP is unidirectional. 

And in stateful PCE, RFC8281 proposed the PCE-initiated LSPs and the PCE 
could send a PCInitiate message to the PCC to request the creation of an 
LSP. 
The PCInitiate message carry the Objects including SRP, LSP ,END-POINTS 
and ERO. But no B bit in SRP object. 

How to configure the direction of the TE LSP in PCE-initiated operation? 

Best Regards, 

Quan Xiong 



 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 


References: 
[Pce] A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs. 
From: xiong . quan 
Prev by Date: Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for 
draft-raghu-pce-lsp-control-request 
Previous by thread: [Pce] A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs. 
Index(es): 
Date 
Thread 
Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do 
not imply endorsement by the IETF. 
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References: 
Re: [Pce] A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs. 
From: xiong . quan
Prev by Date: Re: [Pce] A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs. 
Next by Date: [Pce] iPOP 2018 First CFP 
Previous by thread: Re: [Pce] A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs. 

Next by thread: [Pce] iPOP 2018 First CFP 
Index(es): 
Date 
Thread 
Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do 
not imply endorsement by the IETF.