Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07 (and Code Point Allocation)

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 29 March 2021 14:06 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.ietf@gmail.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 65D793A156E; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 07:06:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AC_DIV_BONANZA=0.001, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 J8Z1qq3CBHt8; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 07:06:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x12d.google.com (mail-il1-x12d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB5983A1568; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 07:06:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x12d.google.com with SMTP id t6so11278338ilp.11; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 07:06:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=1NE8Md0Vojvxp5IyvXWfvZIJ2LWL/11uDEoNezaULFQ=; b=j0ABdhtAYyf1DlFxpkOJUG4l8FgWUIphWPo5gx7BczgPdTxJqrijAiudhGRbb3IThk 7dOG4c3mlrhINFAMExTtuHbUyBAsJnlgX3p0U72nbeps+DInEpFUbyljsJMX4hl3+iJG gj21u0WFbFI/Tcxm62l7pJz4IxzVTqRo/hJ8lpIgppUHeofrtob+/HM2vIQ/I+pe7Ym5 6Bi1dIih0c7CwLnUp2Ei2+VL608dtInY4EP79X7pverJrP1DgRHSTc4/0DzHUDCwfq4L CLd8o34zRuxNEKPL7M4Fyh4tPQf1kHTEY63n7zDyLX+OeyJrp+02aKirt/1gZswHGnrC ZWqg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1NE8Md0Vojvxp5IyvXWfvZIJ2LWL/11uDEoNezaULFQ=; b=ZdSWw21mPSKG86Jv/8a8RxYX//GmPq4fsXfu4FN8IoO26qSpCfh6nGflV+Ojc1vVPs bQ+PVDt8RXxXGw0/I5JR6Mb//h6WtCkoCGVamRk4F4cm6QvLIekgDK+rYgo0m+Hr9jb1 19jV2Kpor8AOje2Zzdnh+WauSph3WhTlNbLmED89h1JIIp32FP9vuMI8WR7v9ud67lMs TKm3M3UPsTy5vLjd+3fTETxKVVK20utHGWXdKnb+q8FmzLKYtM90Srw++Jsbg+jI7OEn qN3OAq4kBW1hVl5DMh3KQuVCZ/tuLsHGedK/17tpKamjUcZ9beFcerwwoYaJg98QX4Ns SNyw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530AydI7CP4KoA4QpEtgu07bKYcLwAF7PtJvWgVv5vG5P1m9V9Am s8d9QZVCmLa/jYqBl2MMEDLVsFr6j+9BdwBZPj0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw3YR9LxRvlNir9diGn2koKkLzwfjrCNobUmWcxHsEqgZxDBhFcHAiAB0ZqQadZhFxMUaMN9zqdyjh3cmB3AP0=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:de4:: with SMTP id m4mr12292581ilj.276.1617026773756; Mon, 29 Mar 2021 07:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <7010_1616065722_605334BA_7010_19_1_3f1d8d24-af98-f962-95ea-0e6ec46b738c@orange.com> <375C800D-2014-4D14-830E-0D15439B9F20@nokia.com> <a2f9686490a34a39af5f977cf59230b7@huawei.com> <B3B06655-1F99-416A-AF8F-9FA53E6DB0BB@nokia.com> <be741e7913304da8a3afd9b1f3cbd1fb@huawei.com> <CABNhwV044vY4tQP6OJhwDWAkMYnD+i=OVKURb1y8eJeMLSHL_A@mail.gmail.com> <CANJFx2T8ZBucUDM+D5UrJ-eF_EKA3Y-Qd2R-6ksX5U_vDJJzhw@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV2anNySChRZ_SyE4Fx6+0CeU=R+ZzLPDM3BDhspkOUZMw@mail.gmail.com> <CANJFx2TPPP6ffisALzgkHh6q_x9CpxyxZbf+qiPx62dCbd_RrA@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV3ZgXhGwO56fz4Wxz2tYT9DW14KmB_v8q4sf-mLUkZDWw@mail.gmail.com> <DM6PR11MB3802D4EB230F0B94546EF400D37E9@DM6PR11MB3802.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CABNhwV1a+z-JWx9p=MXeq-F=qcTdXz-Nu40K3_9G2tR=TkAcJQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABNhwV1a+z-JWx9p=MXeq-F=qcTdXz-Nu40K3_9G2tR=TkAcJQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 19:35:37 +0530
Message-ID: <CAB75xn72c0L+4mnSNtHhRVGyA=UWJ3rKp_eBnoywmHT+rau_ng@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Cc: "Mike Koldychev (mkoldych)" <mkoldych@cisco.com>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>, "Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <andrew.stone@nokia.com>, "draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid@ietf.org>, Siva Sivabalan <msiva282@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="00000000000071ab8f05bead625b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/F3Wv0ZJRdjEHoGX8MCqVhVKO5jw>
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07 (and Code Point Allocation)
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: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 14:06:22 -0000

Hi Gyan,

As a WG member...

IMHO PCE I-D should not go into the data-plane handling of BSID, that is
SPRING/MPLS/6MAN perview.

Thanks!
Dhruv


On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 7:21 PM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Mike
>
> Is the usage for BSID only for control plane signaling as I described it.
>
> What other use cases exist and maybe we should add to the draft.
>
> Thanks
>
> Gyan
>
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 4:50 AM Mike Koldychev (mkoldych) <
> mkoldych@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> I think that BSID is a concept that applies equally well to RSVP-TE and
>> SR-TE. There are many use-cases for RSVP tunnels having a BSID and we
>> definitely DO NOT want to limit it to just SR-TE.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Mike.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Pce <pce-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of * Gyan Mishra
>> *Sent:* Sunday, March 28, 2021 7:53 PM
>> *To:* Siva Sivabalan <msiva282@gmail.com>
>> *Cc:* pce@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid@ietf.org; Stone,
>> Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <andrew.stone@nokia.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for
>> draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07 (and Code Point Allocation)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Siva
>>
>>
>>
>> I believe  I was missing the signaling aspect for the PCE to build the
>> contiguous end to end LSP and that requires BSID to be signaled over
>> RSVP-TE which is although agnostic to data plane BSID component binding the
>> candidate path to the forwarding plane, is a requirement for end to end
>> control plane signaling for the single LSP end to end path instantiation.
>>
>>
>>
>> The BSID signaling concept is somewhat analogous concept to LDP tunneling
>> over RSVP-TE tunnel stitching for an end to end LSP instantiation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you Siva for the clarification.
>>
>>
>>
>> Gyan
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 7:33 PM Siva Sivabalan <msiva282@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Gyan,
>>
>>
>>
>> This ID is all about signaling BSID for RSVP-TE tunnels and SR policies
>> via PCEP.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please do not confuse signaling aspects with how BSID is used.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is no change required in the ID.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Siva
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 7:25 PM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> All
>>
>>
>>
>> After further review with Siva the use case is for connecting SR islands
>> over RSVP-TE core.
>>
>>
>>
>> So this is for stitching SR-TE on the edge islands binding SID to core
>> RSVP-TE tunnel.
>>
>>
>>
>> One major gap  of RSVP-TE is the VRF / VPN coloring capability that in
>> order to achieve per VRF coloring mapping of VRF to a discrete TE tunnel
>> requires a separate loopback and static routes to egress PE so it does not
>> scale.  So for as many RSVP mapped tunnels that exist you need that many
>> loopbacks and static routes for the next hop rewrite to the RSVP tunnel
>> next hop.
>>
>>
>>
>> So this Major gap is filled with SR VRF and app flow coloring capability
>> that with SR-TE Policy BSID bound to candidate path can provide the
>> scalability per VRF coloring.
>>
>>
>>
>> So at the edges you may have many 100s of colored RSVP tunnels but as the
>> core does not scale you can not provide a 1-1 mapping of SR-TE tunnel to
>> RSVP tunnel.  So you would have many to 1 mappings of SR-TE tunnels to
>> single or aggregate.
>>
>>
>>
>> So in my mind to only way the BSID would come into play is if you could
>> do a 1-1 mapping of SR-TE tunnel to RSVP tunnel.  Technically that is not
>> possible.
>>
>>
>>
>> For PCE to compute end to end path in this scenario does RSVP-TE require
>> the BSID for the stitching even if a many SR-TE colors to single RSVP-TE
>> tunnel mapping. I would not think so.
>>
>>
>>
>> If we think that for PCE to build the end to end path even for the end to
>> end path in this scenario requires BSID binding to the RSVP-TE single path
>> to make contiguous end to end then I agree technically we do need to make
>> this inclusive of RSVP-TE.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think we need to clear this up and if this use case is really not
>> feasible then we should remove any mention of BSID use with RSVP-TE tunnel.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind Regards
>>
>>
>>
>> Gyan
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 3:05 PM Siva Sivabalan <msiva282@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Gyan,
>>
>>
>>
>> BSID can be allocated for RSVP-TE as well, and yes, there are use-cases
>> for that. The proposed PCEP extension is equally applicable to both SR-TE
>> and RSVP-TE.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Siva
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 1:40 PM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I support WG LC advancement of this draft for publication.
>>
>>
>>
>> I see there are a lot of comments related to a mix of verbiage related to
>> MPLS label binding and Binding label SID confusion.
>>
>>
>>
>> Few comments.
>>
>>
>>
>> The draft title states “carrying binding label/sid in PCE based networks”
>>
>>
>>
>> In the abstract it states it is possible to associate a BSID with a RSVP
>> signaled path.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don’t recall any RSVP extension to support concept of BSID usage on an
>> active Candidate Path option ERO.  Can you refer me to the RFC that states
>> how BSID is used with RSVP TE.
>>
>>
>>
>> For more clarity with this draft can we replace
>>
>>
>>
>> s/TE/s/SR as TE nomenclature refers to RSVP-TE and does add confusion
>> where SR is SR.  When mentioned traffic engineered path please spell out or
>> say SR path for clarity.
>>
>>
>>
>> Also the “TE-PATH-BINDING TLV” can we change to “SR-PATH-BINDING TLV”.
>>
>>
>>
>> The word “binding” is very confusing as it’s used interchangeably with
>> label binding and binding SID.
>>
>>
>>
>> So I am thinking a more appropriate name for the TLV would be “SR-TE-BSID
>> TLV”.  Makes it clear and concise the TLV is for SR-TE.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind Regards
>>
>>
>>
>> Gyan
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 9:45 PM Chengli (Cheng Li) <c.l@huawei.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks again for your help!
>>
>> Cheng
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) [mailto:andrew.stone@nokia.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 2:42 AM
>> To: Chengli (Cheng Li) <c.l@huawei.com>om>; julien.meuric@orange.com;
>> pce@ietf.org
>> Cc: draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07
>> (and Code Point Allocation)
>>
>> Hi Cheng,
>>
>> Thanks for clarifying the text in the document. Diff content looks good
>> to me, much clearer. Consider my comments resolved.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Andrew
>>
>> On 2021-03-25, 10:49 PM, "Pce on behalf of Chengli (Cheng Li)" <
>> pce-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of c.l@huawei.com> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi Andrew,
>>
>>     Thanks for your comments, please see my reply inline.
>>
>>     Also, the diff is attached.
>>
>>     Respect,
>>     Cheng
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     -----Original Message-----
>>     From: Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) [mailto:
>> andrew.stone@nokia.com]
>>     Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2021 4:21 AM
>>     To: julien.meuric@orange.com; pce@ietf.org
>>     Cc: draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid@ietf.org
>>     Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for
>> draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07 (and Code Point Allocation)
>>
>>     Hi all,
>>
>>     Overall Support WGLC. It's an important document in the world of
>> SRTE, and the document goes to good lengths to describe the various
>> scenarios and combinations.
>>
>>     Only one question I have for the authors and WG, for any further
>> clarification on the following text (section 4):
>>
>>
>>       The absence of TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in PCUpd message
>>        means that the PCE does not specify a binding value in which case
>> the
>>        binding value allocation is governed by the PCC's local policy.
>>
>>
>>     I find the "governed by PCC local policy" a bit too vague and could
>> lead to implementation interop differences. Assuming a PCInitiated LSP that
>> been established with a BSID: If the PCE wants to withdraw the binding SID
>> , I interpret the document as the PCE would send a PCUpdate without the
>> TLV, but the behaviour is now up to PCC as per that text. if the PCC local
>> policy/implementation is to do nothing, how can the PCE explicitly
>> force-remove the BSID with a PCUpdate? In a similar manner, If the PCE does
>> not want to change the value but PCC local policy is to treat missing TLV
>> as remove, then PCE should always send the TLV in every PCUpdate (which I'm
>> okay with) which is not stated, otherwise the local policy/implementation
>> may interpret it as a removal compared to an implementation which may
>> interpret it as being okay to not send the TLV on every PCUpdate since
>> there was "no change".
>>
>>     In summary: might need a bit of a wording to further detail "PCE
>> wishes to withdraw" case.
>>
>>     [Cheng] You are correct, there was some issues with multiple
>> TE-PATH-BINDING TLV. This has been updated. See the diff.
>>
>>     The above text has been updated to -
>>
>>        The absence of TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in PCUpd message means that the
>>        PCE does not specify a binding value in which case any previous
>>        allocated binding values are withdraw.
>>
>>     Further, the PCC's local policy aspect has been seperated out as -
>>
>>        In the absence of any instruction from the PCE, the PCC's local
>>        policy dictates how the binding allocations are made for a given
>> LSP.
>>
>>     Thanks!
>>
>>
>>     Thanks!
>>     Andrew
>>
>>     On 2021-03-18, 7:09 AM, "Pce on behalf of julien.meuric@orange.com" <
>> pce-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of julien.meuric@orange.com> wrote:
>>
>>         Hi all,
>>
>>         This message initiates a 2-week PCE WG Last Call for
>>         draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07. Please review and share your
>>         feedback, whatever it is, using the PCE mailing list. This WGLC
>> will end
>>         on Thursday April 1st (no kidding).
>>
>>
>>         Moreover, we have received a request from the authors for a code
>> point
>>         allocation to support interoperability testing.
>>
>>         RFC 7120 requires to meet the following criteria to proceed:
>>
>>         b. The format, semantics, processing, and other rules related to
>>         handling the protocol entities defined by the code points
>>         (henceforth called "specifications") must be adequately described
>>         in an Internet-Draft.
>>         c. The specifications of these code points must be stable; i.e.,
>> if
>>         there is a change, implementations based on the earlier and later
>>         specifications must be seamlessly interoperable.
>>
>>         If anyone believes that the draft does not meet these criteria, or
>>         believes that early allocation is not appropriate for any other
>>         reason, please send an email to the PCE mailing list explaining
>> why. If
>>         the chairs hear no objections by Thursday, March 25th, we will
>> kick off
>>         the "early" allocation request.
>>
>>         Thanks,
>>
>>         Dhruv & Julien
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>
>>         Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des
>> informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
>>         pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous
>> avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
>>         a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les
>> messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
>>         Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere,
>> deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>>
>>         This message and its attachments may contain confidential or
>> privileged information that may be protected by law;
>>         they should not be distributed, used or copied without
>> authorisation.
>>         If you have received this email in error, please notify the
>> sender and delete this message and its attachments.
>>         As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that
>> have been modified, changed or falsified.
>>         Thank you.
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         Pce mailing list
>>         Pce@ietf.org
>>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pce mailing list
>> Pce@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>>
>> --
>>
>> [image: Image removed by sender.] <http://www.verizon.com/>
>>
>> *Gyan Mishra*
>>
>> *Network Solutions Architect *
>>
>> *Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*
>>
>> *M 301 502-1347*
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> [image: Image removed by sender.] <http://www.verizon.com/>
>>
>> *Gyan Mishra*
>>
>> *Network Solutions Architect *
>>
>> *Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*
>>
>> *M 301 502-1347*
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> [image: Image removed by sender.] <http://www.verizon.com/>
>>
>> *Gyan Mishra*
>>
>> *Network Solutions Architect *
>>
>> *Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*
>>
>> *M 301 502-1347*
>>
>>
>>
> --
>
> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>
> *Gyan Mishra*
>
> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>
> *Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*
>
>
>
> *M 301 502-1347*
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>