IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pce] Whither Stateless PCE?

Robert Varga <nite@hq.sk> Thu, 08 September 2016 23:00 UTC

Return-Path: <nite@hq.sk>
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 D8C2912B274 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Sep 2016 16:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.508
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.508 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.508] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hq.sk
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 vLLS_gWunKYn for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Sep 2016 16:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hq.sk (hq.sk [81.89.59.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 616DC128B44 for <pce@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Sep 2016 15:55:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.137.1.13] (chello085216197060.chello.sk [85.216.197.60]) by mail.hq.sk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 61583243B03; Fri, 9 Sep 2016 00:55:18 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hq.sk; s=mail; t=1473375318; bh=YjouMg8r+NpoFaEGB/3QtkpJnS1JepEpgLaJIAkI9jg=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=dFc7CUSdeOWb/8DevLVU2DpzUN5u42Sq6Zzd0L/MufgMQrt7N9N8uq0HXAKkq39E+ Wk23fftZSvaTtCzzHporiRleCBdzUmK2lRGWbM3xBaPpFa5GoG7A1TCZFpDq7PrGfj 1ZmCJy6spDJR8UJN/be59Zy515B3oAuExyHNhV+g=
To: "Aissaoui, Mustapha (Nokia - CA)" <mustapha.aissaoui@nokia.com>, Olivier Dugeon <olivier.dugeon@orange.com>, LITKOWSKI Stephane OBS/OINIS <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>, Ina Minei <inaminei@google.com>, MEURIC Julien IMT/OLN <julien.meuric@orange.com>
References: <091b01d19036$a22f2f10$e68d8d30$@olddog.co.uk> <d17605c4-c0b1-cc2f-45b4-e43f1844dfc4@hq.sk> <CAG4Q_at0uqErDqAUVm0Ui9BkHP5ju7BYfNWCjbQZOEA9_i7qMw@mail.gmail.com> <4954_1470727984_57A98730_4954_3928_1_796d9606-a529-4261-82d6-a8c2d930b042@OPEXCLILM6D.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAG4Q_avg8_P-ywW1sCBTX-XcB2-UFk4J2bUCrZ0-85Sh8xUn=Q@mail.gmail.com> <5007_1470986552_57AD7938_5007_1163_1_ed4811b2-034d-4104-be0f-5d58ab25004e@OPEXCLILM44.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <57AD9751.8020308@orange.com> <F9C16EDC-8478-464D-A799-A61EA5475690@nokia.com> <2a6339b5-2b73-c6d9-4c02-790600300de6@orange.com> <CAG4Q_au9D0KY8YKXLVNrmk5fdzGhNeGnERvebR=Dod=fvJFxEA@mail.gmail.com> <57C94641.4030603@orange.com> <9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF921BD66EA2@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <57C96FDE.4040203@orange.com> <4A79394211F1AF4EB57D998426C9340DD4A31E7C@US70UWXCHMBA01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
From: Robert Varga <nite@hq.sk>
Message-ID: <b334dae2-c8bc-1ddf-f12c-d7836b49b54a@hq.sk>
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2016 00:55:15 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4A79394211F1AF4EB57D998426C9340DD4A31E7C@US70UWXCHMBA01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="nHgO5XvoIsb6gUNoeIXKErmjnsNGfN2lt"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/4Q4OLkpft5hBD9gxsEcdcCu68o8>
Cc: "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Whither Stateless PCE?
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 08 Sep 2016 23:00:38 -0000

Hello Mustapha,

On 09/08/2016 11:59 PM, Aissaoui, Mustapha (Nokia - CA) wrote:
> The NO-PATH object could indeed be used as is in RFC 5440 in the PCUpd
> message with the NI field set to 0 (“No path satisfying the set of
> constraints could be found”). This may be useful for the user to debug
> the situation from the router without logging in into the PCE. I am OK
> if this is added an optional object in addition to the empty ERO and can
> be used to send more information about the lack of a path in the PCUpd
> message.

I think this is a good idea. I would suggest specifying this in a
separate document with its own capability negotiation, just like the
state synchronization optimizations are.

Bye,
Robert

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email