IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pce] draft-chen-pce-sr-policy-ifit-00

Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com> Thu, 26 March 2020 14:00 UTC

Return-Path: <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>
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 88F5F3A08AA; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 07:00:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 HwNibX6C86zP; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 07:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C926F3A08A6; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 07:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml707-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 00360FC817B4D79E0756; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 14:00:33 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.33) by lhreml707-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 14:00:33 +0000
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.33) by fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 15:00:33 +0100
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.33]) by fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.33]) with mapi id 15.01.1713.004; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 15:00:33 +0100
From: Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>
To: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>, "draft-chen-pce-sr-policy-ifit@ietf.org" <draft-chen-pce-sr-policy-ifit@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Pce] draft-chen-pce-sr-policy-ifit-00
Thread-Index: AdYDZPiy5aAaEO7OQTedSo/Gv7P1bP//+xIA///bhuA=
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 14:00:33 +0000
Message-ID: <43ed0fe248824034a0abeed871f99017@huawei.com>
References: <aae9030445bd43e6b867bbb5169c5ad4@huawei.com> <CAB75xn7THZ9Xm3XLGDQ2ZJZnxGQzvwsq4K8HjkrDZLx4+acHnw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAB75xn7THZ9Xm3XLGDQ2ZJZnxGQzvwsq4K8HjkrDZLx4+acHnw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.0.92]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/88cs1pTZzbkosjiEeaKQHZTl-VM>
Subject: Re: [Pce] draft-chen-pce-sr-policy-ifit-00
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 26 Mar 2020 14:00:40 -0000

Hi Dhruv,
Thanks for your quick feedback.

The current version of the draft adds attribute TLVs to the SR Policy Association Group, but the same TLVs can also be generic in PCEP.
We can surely evaluate to generalize it.

Your assumption is correct, anyway this extension in PCEP would allow PCC to include in general all the available data plane on-path telemetry methods (IOAM, Alternate Marking and so on).

A capability exchange before the use of this extension is a good suggestion in particular for IOAM, but no need for Alternate Marking.

Regards,

Giuseppe


-----Original Message-----
From: Dhruv Dhody [mailto:dhruv.ietf@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 1:34 PM
To: Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>
Cc: pce@ietf.org; draft-chen-pce-sr-policy-ifit@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] draft-chen-pce-sr-policy-ifit-00

Hi Giuseppe,

Thank you for introducing your draft on the mailing list.

A quick high level questions - Could we make this generic: to be applied for any Path Setup Type (PST) in PCEP - RSVP-TE, SR, PCECC etc? I agree that SR might be of immediate importance; but from PCEP point of view, it could be useful to keep this generic so that we don't have to reinvent it for other PST.

It might be good idea to tackle the need for this extension in PCEP - which to me is to make sure that the PCC includes IOAM header in the data packet with fields as specified by the PCE. Correct?

Also suggest to add capability exchange during open messages before a peer uses this extension.

Thanks!
Dhruv (as a WG contributor)

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 5:38 PM Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> We published draft-chen-pce-sr-policy-ifit-00 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-pce-sr-policy-ifit/).
>
> This document aims to define the Extensions to PCEP to distribute SR policies carrying In-situ Flow Information Telemetry information.  The scope is to enable automatically data plane on-path telemetry methods, like IOAM and Alternate Marking, when the SR policy is applied.
>
>
>
> We would introduce it during the next virtual meeting, that has been moved to May or June, and meanwhile, we would really appreciate inputs and reviews of the document.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Giuseppe
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email