Re: [Pce] PCE WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller

[Aijun Wang <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Shuping:

 

Please see the responses inline, wish to see the update of the draft soon.

 

 

Best Regards

 

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

 

From: Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 7:46 PM
To: Aijun Wang <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
[e-mail]
Subject: RE: [Pce] PCE WG LC for
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller

 

Hi Aijun, 

 

Thank you for your comments! Please find the responses in line below. 

 

From: Pce [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Aijun Wang
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 5:42 PM
To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ;
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
Subject: Re: [Pce] PCE WG LC for
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller

 

Hi，Dhruv, Julien and authors of this draft:

 

I reviewed this draft and had the following comments for its WG LC:

1. Generally speaking, I support the direction that stated also in the draft
as "A PCE-based central controller (PCECC) can simplify the processing of a
distributed control plane by blending it with elements of SDN and

   without necessarily completely replacing it."

 

 

[Shuping] Thank you for your support.

 

 

2. This draft states it focuses on LSP Path central control, but I think the
procedures described in this draft is common to other CCI object(which may
be defined in other documents). So would it be better to generalize the
procedures? The specific part for other path type may be only the CCI
objects. This can facilitate the extension of PCECC procedure in other
scenario.

 

 

[Shuping] Yes, you are right. We can add some text in the introduction to
make it clear that though this document focuses on the basic PCECC LSP mode
for the static LSPs, the procedures defined are generic enough to be used by
other PCECC extensions.

[WAJ] Not only the introduction part, but also the following procedures.  It
is better to generalize the (section 5
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce
-controller-06#section-5> ), not strictly limit within the LSP path. 

 

 

3. Section-5.5.1of this draft
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controlle
r-06#section-5.5.1>  describes the “Basic PCECC LSP Setup”, which is based
on the LSP delegation mode. But for LSP delegate mode, the LSP must exist
beforehand, which is constructed via the distributed protocol(RSVP etc.). In
such scenario, is it necessary to allocate the Label via the PCE?

 

 

[Shuping] This is similar to the case for RFC 8664 where a PCC-initiated SR
path is delegated to the PCE. It is not mandatory for the path (label-stack)
to be "constructed" beforehand.

[WAJ] For the PCC-initiated SR path, only the headend need to be touched. It
is different from the scenario described in Figure 2.

 

 

4. I think the most useful scenario for PCECC should be based on “PCE
Initiate” message, which is used to initiate one new path from the PCE,
together with the label allocation.

 

 

[Shuping] I agree.

 

 

5. Similar consideration is for the “PCC allocation label”. What the
reason to let the PCC allocate such label? Why can’t PCE allocate such
information for each PCC from its appointed label space?

 

 

[Shuping] It was suggested to be added because in some cases PCC may not be
able to allocate a part of its label space for PCE to control and it would
want to control the full label-space allocation.

[WAJ] In such situation, we think the distributed only label allocation is
fine. The PCE should not intervene this process. Adding PCE in the network
should simplify the procedures, not make it complex.

 

 

6. For definition of CCI object, will it simplify the overall procedures if
the CCI object for MPLS label includes both the IN and OUT label together?

 

 

[Shuping] At the ingress, we would only have out-label, and at the egress,
we would only have an in-label.

In case of P2MP branch nodes, we would have one in-label and many out-labels
as described in another I-D.

For these reasons, we decided to have them as separate CCI instances.

[WAJ] Separate CCI instances requires the binding function on the devices.
How to avoid the problem when the CCI instances can’t be bound together?
For example, the PCE download two out label, no in label, or vice versa?

 

 

Best Regards, 

Shuping

 

Best Regards

 

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
[mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of [e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> 
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 12:19 AM
To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
Subject: [Pce] PCE WG LC for
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller

 

Hi all,

 

This message initiates a 3-week WG Last Call on
draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-06. Please review and share
your feedback, whatever it is, using the PCE mailing list.

This LC will end on Wednesday August 26, 11:59pm (any timezone).

 

Please note that this I-D is related to

draft-zhao-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr which is already in our WG
adoption queue.

 

Thanks,

 

Dhruv & Julien

 

 

____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________

 

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses,
exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par
erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les
pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
falsifie. Merci.

 

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed,
used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
delete this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.

 

_______________________________________________

Pce mailing list

 <mailto:[e-mail]> [e-mail]

 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce