[Pce] Re: Where the Controlled ID info shuold be carried/encoded?

["Samuel Sidor (ssidor)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

I’m fine with option 1 based on discussion which happened during presentation.

Does it make sense to explicitly mentioned in the draft that updating ranges dynamically was considered, but is considered out of scope and can be introduced later as separate draft if frequent range updates are needed?

Thanks,
Samuel

From: Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2024 11:46 AM
To: Andrew Stone (Nokia) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Cheng Li <c.l=[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; pce-chairs <[e-mail]>; Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Where the Controlled ID info shuold be carried/encoded?

Hi All,

During the IETF 120 discussion, the conclusion was to choose option 1, which involves continuing to use the Open message to encode the ID space controlled by the PCE. It was suggested that a generic Notification mechanism could be developed to update the parameters exchanged during the Open message, outside of this I-D.

Please respond here if you disagree with your reasoning.

Thanks!
Dhruv


On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 12:51 PM Andrew Stone (Nokia) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi all,

I like the PcOpen + PcNotify idea, mainly because I hope we can generically define a pattern of PcOpen content refresh without the need for a session flap.  Using PcOpen+PcNotify also becomes a bit more consistent in approach with the similar state synchronization proposal for add/delete PcOpen between PCE’s. I do not think we should add (even partial) dependency on PCEP-LS to solve that generalized problem. I also do not think we should overload PcRpt since the use of PcRpt is well understood to be about LSP state, and mucking with it to fit other content feels like it's being overloaded.

Therefore I think it comes down to a new message (PcOpenRefresh?) or leveraging PcNotify. I currently don't see a block on using PcNotify for this.

To keep it simple I think the TLVs in the PcNotify should be a snapshot equal to the same content as if this was PcOpen upon connect (i.e don't send diff).  In other words as an example with draft-ietf-pce-controlled-id-space, if someone adds a new range to the PCC, the PcNotify would carry a LABEL-CONTROLS-SPACE-TLV which contains both existing and new ranges and not build in add/remove/diff semantics inside of the TLV itself.

Thanks
Andrew

From: Cheng Li <c.l=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 at 6:28 AM
To: Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, pce-chairs <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: RE: [Pce] Where the Controlled ID info shuold be carried/encoded?

CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext<http://nok.it/ext> for additional information.


Yes, I also think this combination is better.
Option 1 Open msg can be used for initial report, and the rest update can be reported by the Notification msg.

Already recorded this in the slide.

Cheng


From: Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2024 11:34 AM
To: Cheng Li <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; pce-chairs <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Where the Controlled ID info shuold be carried/encoded?

Hi,

Samuel made a suggestion to combine the options of using Open and Notification together, I have now captured that in the notes page - https://notes.ietf.org/draft-ietf-pce-controlled-id-space?view

Feel free to add to the discussion here or on the notes page.

Thanks!
Dhruv

On Sat, Jul 6, 2024 at 2:53 PM Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Cheng,

To facilitate this discussion I have created a notes page - https://notes.ietf.org/draft-ietf-pce-controlled-id-space?view that documents the various options.

WG,

Feel free to add things there but add your name for easy tracking.
You can also add your preference for a solution and with reasoning at the bottom or simply reply on this thread and I can keep the notes page updated.

Hope the WG finds this useful and it helps in converging on a way forward...

Thanks!
Dhruv

On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 10:46 AM Cheng Li <c.l=[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Guys，

Thank you so much for your helpful review and comments of our draft draft-ietf-pce-controlled-id-space.
In the WG adoption, I can summarize our discussion into the below bullets, hope they are correct,

  1.  The draft is useful, and the mechanism defined in the draft is needed, we should work on it. (Thanks!)
  2.  We need to discuss the where the info should be carried in the PCEP. Open Object seems not so good ☹
  3.  TLV encoding should be updated to be more generic or let's avoid the generic description and define specific sub-TLVs as needed.

I see the reasons why we decided to carry the info in PCEP Open Object, because it is a device-wide configuration info, which should not be modified in the running state. We may face a lot of trouble of removing some IDs and then modify the range in a running network. However, we may also need to handle the negotiation between PCC and PCE?  Therefore, I am also concerning about this.

I like to hear your voice on this, which object/msg is appropriate to carry the info? I am open with other options.

Possible options could be

•  Open message

•  Use PCEP-LS encoding and make this a node attribute

•  New type of notification

•  New message/object

Once we get the conclusion of this, we can go to the bullet 3, which is much easier that bullet 2. IMHO, I will prefer to define sub-TLVs one by one, this can decouple the relations between IDs, though we may need to delete the 'generic' words.

Thoughts?
Cheng

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list -- [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>