Re: [Pce] A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs.
xiong.quan@zte.com.cn Tue, 23 January 2018 07:38 UTC
Return-Path: <xiong.quan@zte.com.cn>
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 D9FD012D85E for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 23:38:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.228
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.228 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.981, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 p41j4GX2dn1L for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 23:38:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (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 5597112D94D for <pce@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 23:37:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxct.zte.com.cn (unknown [192.168.164.217]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 18F807DBBA9386792131; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 15:37:43 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mse01.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.3.20]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 0370B3C0D9FD4614F69E; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 15:37:43 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse01.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id w0N7bCa7095424; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 15:37:12 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from xiong.quan@zte.com.cn)
To: dhruv.dhody@huawei.com, draft-barth-pce-association-bidir@ietf.org
Cc: edward.crabbe@gmail.com, inaminei@google.com, msiva@cisco.com, robert.varga@pantheon.tech, pce@ietf.org, hu.fangwei@relay.zte.com.cn, julien.meuric@orange.com, jonathan.hardwick@metaswitch.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-KeepSent: 75E385DF:CBF7EC89-4825821E:0028622F; type=4; name=$KeepSent
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.3 September 15, 2011
Message-ID: <OF75E385DF.CBF7EC89-ON4825821E.0028622F-4825821E.0029DC4E@zte.com.cn>
From: xiong.quan@zte.com.cn
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 15:37:24 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 9.0.1FP7|August 17, 2016) at 2018-01-23 15:37:08, Serialize complete at 2018-01-23 15:37:08
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0029DC4C4825821E_="
X-MAIL: mse01.zte.com.cn w0N7bCa7095424
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/8LYgV8Z9LY5u1OE64HbpfaW1C7o>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 00:14:35 -0800
Subject: Re: [Pce] A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs.
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 07:38:30 -0000
Hi Dhruv, Thank you for the reply!O(∩_∩)O~ I agree two created PCE-initiated LSPs may be associated by ASSOCIATION object as discussed in draft-barth-pce-association-bidir. But if there is no LSP existed, how to request a bi-directional TE LSP from PCE in PCE initiated operation? Quan Xiong -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Pce] A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: "xiong.quan at zte.com.cn" <xiong.quan at zte.com.cn>, "edward.crabbe at gmail.com" <edward.crabbe at gmail.com>, "inaminei at google.com" <inaminei at google.com>, "msiva at cisco.com" <msiva at cisco.com>, "robert.varga at pantheon.tech" <robert.varga at pantheon.tech> Subject: Re: [Pce] A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs. From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody at huawei.com> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:28:27 +0000 Accept-language: en-GB, en-US Archived-at: < https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/ryZRIHK4zGoqSAsxMFQetTWDjbY> Cc: "hu.fangwei at relay.zte.com.cn" <hu.fangwei at relay.zte.com.cn>, "pce at ietf.org" <pce at ietf.org>, "draft-barth-pce-association-bidir at ietf.org" <draft-barth-pce-association-bidir at ietf.org> Delivered-to: pce at ietfa.amsl.com In-reply-to: <OF60BFF49D.2F7F81DC-ON48258217.0026FFA8-4825821E.000BA102@zte.com.cn> List-archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/> List-help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help> List-id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org> List-post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org> List-subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, < mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe> List-unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, < mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> References: <OF60BFF49D.2F7F81DC-ON48258217.0026FFA8-4825821E.000BA102@zte.com.cn> Thread-index: AQHTk+76gKqVuxcwbkmqwLTk/0dyLaOAy0lA Thread-topic: [Pce] A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Quan, Check out - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-barth-pce-association-bidir/ Authors are in cc, if you need to have further discussion! Thanks! Dhruv From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of xiong.quan at zte.com.cn Sent: 23 January 2018 07:37 To: edward.crabbe at gmail.com; inaminei at google.com; msiva at cisco.com; robert.varga at pantheon.tech Cc: hu.fangwei at relay.zte.com.cn; pce at ietf.org Subject: [Pce] A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs. Hi all, I encountered a problem as following shown.O(∩_∩)O~ As defined in RFC5440,the PCC-initiated LSPs creation uses the B bit in RP object of PCReq message to indicate the direction of the TE LSP. When set, the PCC requests a bi-directional TE LSP and when cleared, the TE LSP is unidirectional. And in stateful PCE, RFC8281 proposed the PCE-initiated LSPs and the PCE could send a PCInitiate message to the PCC to request the creation of an LSP. The PCInitiate message carry the Objects including SRP, LSP ,END-POINTS and ERO. But no B bit in SRP object. How to configure the direction of the TE LSP in PCE-initiated operation? Best Regards, Quan Xiong -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References: [Pce] A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs. From: xiong . quan Prev by Date: Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-raghu-pce-lsp-control-request Previous by thread: [Pce] A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs. Index(es): Date Thread Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.