Re: [Pce] [mpls] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-busibel-teas-yang-path-computation-00

[Dieter Beller <[e-mail]>]

Hi Igor,

could you please clarify how useful a stateful path without resource allocation is. I can't see the benefits of this use case.


Thanks,
Dieter

On 04.11.2016 14:25, Igor Bryskin wrote:

Hi Dieter,

 

A provider may compute path(s) for a TE tunnel, and then (without any resource allocation) may start monitoring/ensuring the path validity/optimality by re-computing them in an event driven manner. For example, it can trigger the re-computation of the path(s) when detecting a change in a state of a TE link the current path(s) are going through.  Depending on the results additional notifications may be sent to the client.

 

Note that this is in addition to the reasons you correctly identified for implementing stateful path computation (such as compute_and_reserve).

 

Cheers,

Igor

 

 

From: Beller, Dieter (Nokia - DE) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 6:27 PM
To: Leeyoung
Cc: Igor Bryskin; Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE); Daniele Ceccarelli; CCAMP ([e-mail]); [e-mail]; TEAS WG ([e-mail]); [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [mpls] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-busibel-teas-yang-path-computation-00" rel="nofollow">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-busibel-teas-yang-path-computation-00

 

Hi all, 

when we talk about the stateful path computation use case, it means IMHO that when a path has been calculated successfully in response to a request, a new path object is created in the data store. This does only make sense if the resources have been allocated in the TED of the PCE irrespective of the fact whether the connection along this path will be established right away or at a later point in time. This will prevent further path computation requests from assuming that the resources are still available. As the TED of the PCE also has to reflect the network state, I would assume that the network resources can be in one of the following three states: available, allocatedButNotInUse,  allocatedAndInUse. The path objects also need state information reflecting for example the alarm state of the allocated resources. The path calculated earlier may become (temporarily) invalid due to a link failure affecting the path. 

Does this make sense? 

Thanks, 

Dieter

Sent from my tablet

Leeyoung <[e-mail]> wrote:

Igor,

 

When you say “state”, are you referring to the YANG datastore or some other “interim” state of those paths that are calculated but not instantiated as LSPs? If we were to update the YANG datastore for this, I would think that we may have some issue when the customer decided not to instantiate the TE tunnel (after the path compute request).

 

Thanks.

Young

 

 

From: Igor Bryskin
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 3:02 PM
To: Leeyoung; Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE); Daniele Ceccarelli; CCAMP ([e-mail]); [e-mail]; TEAS WG ([e-mail]); [e-mail]
Subject: RE: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-busibel-teas-yang-path-computation-00" rel="nofollow">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-busibel-teas-yang-path-computation-00

 

Young,

 

From the provider controller point of view COMPUTE_ONLY TE tunnels will have exactly the same state as “normal” (COMPUTE_ADN_PROVISION) TE tunnels.

 

Igor

 

From: Leeyoung
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 3:42 PM
To: Igor Bryskin; Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE); Daniele Ceccarelli; CCAMP ([e-mail]); [e-mail]; TEAS WG ([e-mail]); [e-mail]
Subject: RE: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-busibel-teas-yang-path-computation-00" rel="nofollow">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-busibel-teas-yang-path-computation-00

 

Igor,

 

In such case, would the YANG datastore be updated? I guess not. If not, then the system/controller has to keep this interim state, would it?

 

Thanks.

Young

 

From: Igor Bryskin
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 2:34 PM
To: Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE); Leeyoung; Daniele Ceccarelli; CCAMP ([e-mail]); [e-mail]; TEAS WG ([e-mail]); [e-mail]
Subject: RE: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-busibel-teas-yang-path-computation-00" rel="nofollow">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-busibel-teas-yang-path-computation-00

 

Michael,

You are exactly right. The purpose of the “compute-only” TE tunnel is to create/maintain the normal TE tunnel state and (re-)compute TE paths for the TE tunnel connections/LSPs but not signal/provision the LSPs.

 

Igor

 

From: Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 3:17 PM
To: Leeyoung; Daniele Ceccarelli; Igor Bryskin; CCAMP ([e-mail]); [e-mail]; TEAS WG ([e-mail]); [e-mail]
Subject: RE: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-busibel-teas-yang-path-computation-00" rel="nofollow">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-busibel-teas-yang-path-computation-00

 

Isn’t the intention of defining „compute-only tunnels“ to create state in the controller, but not to signal them? If the tunnel should be signaled and resources shall be allocated, why not just configure a vanilla tunnel? Uses cases seem to exist for both variants, and both can be encoded in YANG. Is there anything I miss here?

 

Michael

 

 

From: Leeyoung [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 7:49 PM
To: Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE); Daniele Ceccarelli; Igor Bryskin; CCAMP ([e-mail]); [e-mail]; TEAS WG ([e-mail]); [e-mail]
Subject: RE: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-busibel-teas-yang-path-computation-00" rel="nofollow">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-busibel-teas-yang-path-computation-00

 

Hi Michael,

 

I think I am with you on your point. If we use rpc, it is clear. On the other hand, if we were to use “stateful compute-only” it seems that the system/controller has to keep the state of the paths somewhere which is not YANG datastore. My understanding is that YANG datastore is updated only when the path is signaled and resource is allocated. Would this give the system/controller additional burden to keep the “interim” state?

 

Young

 

From: CCAMP [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE)
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 8:58 AM
To: Daniele Ceccarelli; Igor Bryskin; CCAMP ([e-mail]); [e-mail]; TEAS WG ([e-mail]); [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-busibel-teas-yang-path-computation-00" rel="nofollow">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-busibel-teas-yang-path-computation-00

 

Maybe I miss something, but to me, the domain controller either computes a path stateless, which can be modeled in YANG in an RPC. Or the domain controller computes a path, stores state, and provides access to the result in the YANG datastore. In the latter case, whether resources are allocated, or whether the NEs get actually provisioned, is an orthogonal question.

 

As a side note, I am not sure of I would call a domain controller or an NMS a PCE. Path computation is only a subset of the functions of a domain controller.

 

Michael

 

 

 

From: Daniele Ceccarelli [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 2:49 PM
To: Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE); Igor Bryskin; CCAMP ([e-mail]); [e-mail]; TEAS WG ([e-mail]); [e-mail]
Subject: RE: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-busibel-teas-yang-path-computation-00" rel="nofollow">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-busibel-teas-yang-path-computation-00

 

Can you please explain what the “stateful compute-only” stands for I don’t understand what is stateful in a path computation request only.

IMHO either I ask the PCE (SDN controller, NMS, whatever) to compute a path and then forget about it or I ask to compute and provision it. I don’t understand the value of asking for it and remembering about it.

 

BR
Daniele 

 

From: Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: giovedì 3 novembre 2016 14:45
To: Igor Bryskin <[e-mail]>; Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>; CCAMP ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; TEAS WG ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-busibel-teas-yang-path-computation-00" rel="nofollow">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-busibel-teas-yang-path-computation-00

 

We have discussed this before. From an implementer’s perspective, the two clean solutions to the problem seem to either stateful „compute-only“ tunnels or a stateless RPC.

 

Michael

 

 

From: mpls [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Igor Bryskin
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 2:34 PM
To: Daniele Ceccarelli; CCAMP ([e-mail]); [e-mail]; TEAS WG ([e-mail]); [e-mail]
Subject: [ALU] [mpls]http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-busibel-teas-yang-path-computation-00" rel="nofollow">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-busibel-teas-yang-path-computation-00

 

Hi,

 

From the draft:

 

6.    YANG Model for requesting Path Computation

 

 

   Work on extending the TE Tunnel YANG model to support the need to

   request path computation has recently started also in the context of

   the [https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-busibel-teas-yang-path-computation-00#ref-TE-TUNNEL" title='"A YANG Data Model for Traffic Engineering Tunnels and Interfaces"' rel="nofollow">TE-TUNNEL] draft.

 

   It is possible to request path computation by configuring a

   "compute-only" TE tunnel and retrieving the computed path(s) in the

   LSP(s) Record-Route Object (RRO) list as described in [https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-busibel-teas-yang-path-computation-00#ref-TE-TUNNEL" title='"A YANG Data Model for Traffic Engineering Tunnels and Interfaces"' rel="nofollow">TE-TUNNEL].

 

   This is a stateful solution since the state of each created

   "compute-only" TE tunnel needs to be maintained and updated, when

   underlying network conditions change.

 

   The need also for a stateless solution, based on an RPC, has been

   recognized.

 

 

   The YANG model to support stateless RPC is for further study.

 

 

 

 

 

IB>> Please, note, that in the TE Tunnel model we consider the COMPUTE_AND_FORGET mode. We also consider the concept of path computation action to be defined under the TE tunnel node. All this is to facilitate stateless path computations.

 

Cheers,

Igor