Re: [Pce] Clarification regarding path <attribute-list> in PCReport and PCUpdate

Ramon Casellas <ramon.casellas@cttc.es> Tue, 02 June 2015 07:42 UTC

Return-Path: <ramon.casellas@cttc.es>
X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C67B61A872E for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 00:42:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=ham
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 IaXdkltOiIdV for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 00:42:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from navarro.puc.rediris.es (navarro.puc.rediris.es [IPv6:2001:720:418:ca01::131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B580B1AD068 for <pce@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 00:42:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [84.88.62.208] (helo=leo) by navarro.puc.rediris.es with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ramon.casellas@cttc.es>) id 1Yzgpi-0000vO-DU for pce@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Jun 2015 09:42:01 +0200
Received: from [84.88.61.50] (unknown [84.88.61.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by leo (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7F5EF1FD05 for <pce@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jun 2015 09:41:53 +0200 (CEST)
X-Envelope-From: ramon.casellas@cttc.es
Message-ID: <556D5E3A.4090509@cttc.es>
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 09:41:46 +0200
From: Ramon Casellas <ramon.casellas@cttc.es>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pce@ietf.org
References: <EB3B6B95EF049545B844F55DE2F1B6E2CF535B2A@US70UWXCHMBA04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <EB3B6B95EF049545B844F55DE2F1B6E2CF535B2A@US70UWXCHMBA04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080907030701090704080300"
X-Spamina-Bogosity: Unsure
X-Spamina-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--)
X-Spamina-Spam-Report: Content analysis details: (-2.9 points) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: ietf.org] -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/B1DRvgn_eLXlQC3_vSV6ASuHapo>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Clarification regarding path <attribute-list> in PCReport and PCUpdate
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 02 Jun 2015 07:42:07 -0000

Hi Jaishal

For what is worth, there was some discussion about this in the past, and 
some thoughts are reflected in

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-many-pce-pcep-bcp-01#section-4.1.5

In short, IMHO, "attribute-list" goes beyond RFC5440, should take into 
account other RFC extensions and it would be great if attributes could 
be unified across requests and replies (both in stateless and stateful 
aspects) either being used as constraints or as path attributes

In particular, in that draft the idea is to unify "attributes" and add 
RRO as another attribute.

the RBNF would be:

   <path>      ::= <ERO> [<attributes>]



in PCReq

    <request>          ::= <expansion> |
                           <p2p_computation> |
                           <p2mp_computation>

    <expansion>        ::= <RP><PATH-KEY>

    <p2p_computation>  ::= <RP><ENDPOINTS>
                          [<LSP>]
                          [<attributes>]


in PCRep

    <response>  ::= <RP> [<monitoring>] [<LSP>]
                   (<success> | <failure>) [<monitoring-metrics>]


    -- Note: should clarify P2MP attributes. P2MP response
    -- also includes endpoint-path-pair-list. TBD

    <success>   ::= <path-list>

    <failure>   ::= <NO-PATH> [<attributes>]


PCRpt

  <solicited-report>   ::= <SRP> <LSP> <path>

    <unsolicited-report> ::= <LSP> <path>


PCUpd

    <update-request> ::= <SRP>
                         <LSP>
                         <path>



You may want to check the draft for details,
Just 2 cents, hope it helps a bit. Still, it is not 100% clear how all 
extensions can be integrated and unified in a comprehensive and in a 
non-ambiguous way.
Ramon



El 02/06/2015 a las 9:29, Shah, Jaishal (Jaishal) escribió:
>
> Hi All,
>
> As per draft-ietf-stateful-pce-11
>
> A PCC sending PCRpt to PCE should have following format
>
> <state-report> ::= [<SRP>]
>
> <LSP>
>
> <path>
>
> Where:
>
> <path>::= <ERO><attribute-list>[<RRO>]
>
> <attribute-list> is as per RFC 5440. <attribute-list>::=[<LSPA>] 
> [<BANDWIDTH>] [<metric-list>] [<IRO>]
>
> Now, as per RFC 5440, <attribute-list> is part of PCReply and for a 
> PCReply with ERO can have just BW, Metric-list.
>
> LSPA and IRO are to be included in PCReply as per 5440 in case of 
> unsuccessful
>
> So, does the understanding that PCReport attribute list can have only 
> these objects hold true ? Also I believe these objects
>
> would follow the rules for PCReply. Eg P-bit, Bound-bit, Compute-bit 
> etc hold no significance in these objects in PCReport
>
> Same will be the case for PCUpdate I believe.
>
> It would be great some clarification is shared on this.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce