IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pce] Clarification regarding P Flag of End-Points Object in PCInitiate Message

Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com> Wed, 20 July 2022 13:53 UTC

Return-Path: <dd@dhruvdhody.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 7D034C16ECB0 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 06:53:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dhruvdhody-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v2CJXgHYbRhs for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 06:53:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-x1036.google.com (mail-pj1-x1036.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1036]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D308C16ED0D for <pce@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 06:53:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1036.google.com with SMTP id x24-20020a17090ab01800b001f21556cf48so2123791pjq.4 for <pce@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 06:53:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dhruvdhody-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=odhRd0Y1NlXEnF+CyM+6XejUNGVzEaw0WEp6As7S9zk=; b=HF1/cmK4mUUm45om+/8EXbPVeDc7MRTTogAAdPb239JK+VlQR0DwvE8kqnge/5u+rP qci7lOZe8FWWz0GyuQ0q626IlkfcdjD1yB78DEG8QdIqvjw+AE2TykwuVGGHIO/cR2i1 V6qHj8PztgIce+/o5YixQ+hQu1Kdg4IK8VXSC1mVBhJubfkKaJI4UiACM70a7r2J/KR1 D/eQUN/uobZbvxAgSUB6G++lSTUEIVMPRAKvtBHW/3fgL64az5/pnW5+z59AZt2Cgf+x euxqPcWGAueaCIhxg4iC7MJp1tf7VMm4CXWkucu3rT9Mbty8WwogE3hJMM+3swTDhLvS gQPw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=odhRd0Y1NlXEnF+CyM+6XejUNGVzEaw0WEp6As7S9zk=; b=de20qHlCKDv1CMNktK/YmVpWryCZO4MUAlbqZ3Avdp+0GDqh5KQ56I7HImu+Vu7CW2 4+cRtsX+QBdq7cJHl+PdE2viICgIaDrhbOmPr93gGJ7p4vS7bPeX3Eoq6mIHa9Dol0vm flLNp0sXWzvJMGe7NltFilzQo01VwowBJaFOvaioCB6z1foFNZujde56Naf+f+fA/xnd H5hIWOCzhMTdWXYTRfnLDIARtWJeGD21+Aw6a2r0279fAB6axtKP7NSPXJJxznkanBQ9 4r9YNt4g4lruXcf9xjSNe5TV0+bhbcNUbn4KreRmNCHMp0JehB2Laf/+3lpJpbjjx/0y zizg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora8O9vfala+Gi8Zq6VdrJiUqhw3m1Y6467MmsJYaaCi/H9IDY8Io IB/QFApYVAGO/NjohK/V8jJyZnaiNHef9BjOvCnTJSROICT9/iSA
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1t5C5sXLMHEfqYVOz7bvA/SJ4agVgrYlWqvgqYuPa0RTjvh4FVggttTsvbhP455B1lDWEyBaR6J35/OX4OUPqo=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:384b:b0:1f0:6ef2:183f with SMTP id nl11-20020a17090b384b00b001f06ef2183fmr5519704pjb.100.1658325226689; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 06:53:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CANVfNKpFxqVG6x4K2kx9E+Xs1GeobTV=YTh7AO=NBRtBBbFkWw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANVfNKpFxqVG6x4K2kx9E+Xs1GeobTV=YTh7AO=NBRtBBbFkWw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 19:23:10 +0530
Message-ID: <CAP7zK5afiBp5oqcPgu1aaomXOmPDoFhKbnHDO4J49FdLnXHMng@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mrinmoy Das <mrinmoy.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000f2e0405e43cee91"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/E5VZKxgq-at585yw5ZTZ5CkJpoA>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Clarification regarding P Flag of End-Points Object in PCInitiate Message
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 13:53:48 -0000

Hi Mrinmoy,

On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 7:07 PM Mrinmoy Das <mrinmoy.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Team,
>
> Below is the section where END-POINTS object usage in PCInitiate message
> has been mentioned:
>
> Specification: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8281
>
>
>
> *5.3 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8281#section-5.3>.  LSP Instantiation*
>
>
>
>    For an instantiation request of an RSVP-signaled LSP, the destination
>
>    address may be needed.  The PCC MAY determine it from a provided
>
>    object (e.g., ERO) or a local decision.  Alternatively, the
>
>    END-POINTS object MAY be included to explicitly convey the
>
>    destination addresses to be used in the RSVP-TE signaling.  The
>
>    source address MUST be either specified or left for the PCC to choose
>
>    by setting it to "0.0.0.0" (if the destination is an IPv4 address) or
>
>    "::" (if the destination is an IPv6 address).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Crabbe, et al.               Standards Track                   [Page 10]
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> RFC 8281 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8281>           PCE-Initiated LSPs in Stateful PCE      December 2017
>
>
>
>
>
>    The PCE MAY include various attributes as per [RFC5440 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5440>].  The PCC
>
>    MUST use these values in the LSP instantiation and local values for
>
>    unspecified parameters.
>
>
>
> Above highlighted statement mentioned that inclusion of optional object
> END-POINTS in PCInitiate message explicitly convey
>
> the destination addresses to be used in the RSVP-TE signaling. No
> reference of the P flag is mentioned.
>
>
>
Assuming you mean the P flag in the common object header, the P (& I flag)
is ignored in the stateful messages. RFC 8231 states -

   The P and I flags of the PCEP
   objects defined in the current document MUST be set to 0 on
   transmission and SHOULD be ignored on receipt since they are
   exclusively related to path computation requests.


If you are implementing the extension draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional,
which allows for the use of the P & I flag, the PCE could decide to set the
flag if it wants the PCC to MUST process the ENDPOINT object.



> So, is it really necessary to set the P flag in the END-POINTS object of
> PCInitiate Message? Please let me know.
>
>
>
Assuming you are not implementing draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-optional,
then set it to 0 as per RFC 8231.

Thanks!
Dhruv


> Thanks,
>
> Mrinmoy
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email