IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pce] Whither Stateless PCE?

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 06 April 2016 22:06 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 EB04912D0A3 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 15:06:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 Sc85VuSElUls for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 15:06:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x230.google.com (mail-io0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::230]) (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 EE76312D601 for <pce@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 15:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x230.google.com with SMTP id o126so50677197iod.0 for <pce@ietf.org>; Wed, 06 Apr 2016 15:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc; bh=mDttXy9S+Cc7/bh4fekmMi4Jgi4Zarz8ATT2mE1ulmI=; b=iacR0ZmqnGWAHh9EUo180T5rgRGfNWYUOFaZ9r/7sClJq69xKVrJnx+/vJeT9xJ9MV xghmLlaxuYhCzPL8FdsntmzKRSRJ4OZK/JajTopkzlZyDWoRpMUZM2jnd7DeNVHcdffa NZpa5U1Z4VSR7SF98tUoqEEAB33mxZhbVa2hzM0Atya2yAHhTZ98unWNiaU7JumrT0/F fvst2GzskOlmuSLe/oQgONjPNjf14OMoKrCoDbLyqsmlOJEvLbwgt3zpTQe90px1dkBg IBDmvKXrNHm5wuxlWvVyj2EMrTmSghR82fml5FAPrf7yFl+GPJL/y98l/pULb6cRDH3u Wb9g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=mDttXy9S+Cc7/bh4fekmMi4Jgi4Zarz8ATT2mE1ulmI=; b=h++PkIZA4BkZyX1ufLwuWmcafYBXuONd/uSJk21YAphcf9XkNe6G6IyUAaBGRcJOkK q66995HDtu7zRZhfV3TLjGCyLT4dSJkCjipSZdr0HReQLN78N0q1/f7tP8nUO6fZB0sT zcZB1vUqdZPogTbjmNn5imWQSlMlDqJzNZpKsoVD9mbYFM44wNh5ESUm3H+fsP39cMbB UbP43RIXypcAnrwviNT5md+EFSEwvboWzH6sRfAV8x53Wpe9P8nWoeRE5rcoHprTbtml LE5+kRH9pDJTcQMkMRE42DNqZwZ17oaiJKLyxeCLYaLw4FRGCEsecV94T5ympzmZ/Mmr 9yWQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJL6lPns5XPtmtEeZR/pPpvYTLJ6TtCloUe8guz2/IK56v65phIdyRkWpV5Pqa2D6x225OVEh/8MWqH3yw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.10.206 with SMTP id 75mr219995iok.155.1459980402108; Wed, 06 Apr 2016 15:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: dhruvdhody@gmail.com
X-Google-Sender-Delegation: dhruvdhody@gmail.com
Received: by 10.50.222.71 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 15:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <091b01d19036$a22f2f10$e68d8d30$@olddog.co.uk>
References: <091b01d19036$a22f2f10$e68d8d30$@olddog.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 19:06:42 -0300
X-Google-Sender-Auth: BHjpJKmg73UzZcbABQNzuDcRMMY
Message-ID: <CAB75xn7UKxZwq0zWXRopPyrtGfaYpP31jzMbGF3SsUB9CEQLuA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Farrel Adrian <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113f89b43f4473052fd82da9"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/GLYA9DLrc8F_NxMzvcj1CFJKiv8>
Cc: "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Whither Stateless PCE?
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 06 Apr 2016 22:06:47 -0000

Hi Adrian,

Even in the brave new world of Stateful PCE, PCReq and PCRep messages do
play a role in the passive stateful PCE mode. PCReq/PCRep also play a
crucial role in the inter-domain and inter-layer context in the new
proposal like stateful H-PCE.

At the same time mandating that every extension (say SFC) must also be
specified in a stateless manner when no customer deploy in such a way,
might be overkill.

Perhaps we need to look at it case by case!

Dhruv

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:

> Once upon a time, in a working group far, far away, PCE was basically
> stateless.
> PCE acted in response to questions asked by PCCs.
>
> These days, everyone is excited by stateful PCEs and there is a lot of
> initiation (of LSPs or of control of LSPs).
>
> In the jabber room during today's meeting Ravi noted that not a lot of the
> new
> drafts (maybe none of them) talk about PCReq messages. This raises the
> question
> in our minds as to whether stateless PCE is obsolete.
>
> If (and only if) this mode of PCE usage has gone out of fashion, we *might*
> consider cleaning up the protocol and architecture so that we don't need
> to make
> protocol extensions to PCReq and PCRep messages when we make extensions to
> PCInit messages.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Adrian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email