IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pce] PCEP ERO

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 16 June 2014 12:06 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
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 8D4251B2BDE for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-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 QXiTgz5RbcIh for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:06:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x22a.google.com (mail-ie0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B79F1B2C09 for <pce@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:06:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f170.google.com with SMTP id tr6so4922831ieb.29 for <pce@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:06:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=zihfr2a0EJGs+Ss93urDCcL5FruIPXQoEzE0/KdxlCA=; b=omtuCS2zdqp5QeHxsBLurGo+YGtzOvpPQFsgQP037QSigrGePtelDAXYH/CsY1XjQR gmeTFJa/4k69ZBYUzMQzMmvyrxC0nkMvcBHJ6NUYTVsJi/WTZ6bCP3R+w0ytlmzMl7u/ osZHFXV8iKojNqksh2D2LfBuUguQEMfWrFW4K7aXRtTyNaLgmQjkFtWgQuiz+uQypTXq mvO5awDox5axZdtB4BMnZNI52jtJlAjiWY2KjblPP5zIU8rHji0DCbFAf7dTFUlOnrZ3 03GKtJhFGk36KPDSRZyRs8WMuGrosHEjKXlGvsaUKF+n8Huc3GIBkIrH0/EVP8+2x5lT wXDw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.43.114.70 with SMTP id ez6mr20323243icc.26.1402920374033; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:06:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.179.98 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <00cb01cf8956$c92fcea0$5b8f6be0$@olddog.co.uk>
References: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B7556E603@szxeml556-mbs.china.huawei.com> <539EB1E9.2040008@orange.com> <CAB75xn475ROzMBxN1YY=4a+vqxgyYddBi3KQncetznLp3md_yA@mail.gmail.com> <00cb01cf8956$c92fcea0$5b8f6be0$@olddog.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 17:36:13 +0530
Message-ID: <CAB75xn4FcdSrRi3ddjz5miPSXpD-aAs6-dryf8yAS_C_oqFkrA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Farrel Adrian <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/JdFT6f-mJHBt8krVM4N-fUOnUkk
Cc: "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Pce] PCEP ERO
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: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 12:06:19 -0000

Hi Adrian,

Yup, i found the text in RFC4990 helpful.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4990#section-6

   Implementations making limited assumptions about the content of an
   ERO or RRO when processing a received RSVP message may cause or
   experience interoperability issues.  Therefore, implementations that
   want to ensure full interoperability need to support the receipt for
   processing of all ERO and RRO options applicable to their hardware
   capabilities.

I agree with your analysis regarding the need to indicate an ERO
encoding preference in PCEP.
Unless every node in the path know the preference of the downstream
node the problem still exists (in RSVP-TE).
The ERO encoding preference of a downstream node may be learned via
IGP flooding perhaps but some might consider this a bit excessive?

Dhruv


On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
> Julien is right (of course).
>
> This survey led (in part) to RFC 4990. section 6 may be what Dhruv is looking
> for.
>
> A nasty question lurking in the background is whether a PCC needs to indicate
> which construction of ERO is prefers. Consider if the interface was CLI not
> PCEP: in this case the supported construction of ERO is part of the CLI
> definition. However, given that most of the ERO is not for local consumption and
> does not need to be examined by the PCC, this question may be of debatable
> value.
>
> Adrian
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
>> Sent: 16 June 2014 10:27
>> To: Julien Meuric
>> Cc: pce@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [Pce] PCEP ERO
>>
>> Hi Julien,
>>
>> Thanks for the pointer, this surely helps.
>> Time to dive into the archives.....
>>
>> Dhruv
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Dhruv.
>> >
>> > PCEP does not mandates more rules on ERO than RSVP-TE, which reminds me
>> of
>> > an old discussion in CCAMP. You may want to have a look at
>> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrel-ccamp-ero-survey-00 and dive into
>> > the associated thread back in 2006.
>> >
>> > Julien
>> >
>> >
>> > Jun. 16, 2014 - Dhruv Dhody:
>> >>
>> >> Attaching the figure in a pdf, in case you could not view in my previous
>> >> mail.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >>
>> >> Dhruv
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >> *Dhruv Dhody *
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> System Architect,
>> >>
>> >> Huawei Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.,
>> >>
>> >> Banagalore
>> >>
>> >> Mobile: +91-9845062422
>> >>
>> >> This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from
>> >> HUAWEI, which
>> >>
>> >> is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above.
>> >> Any use of the
>> >>
>> >> information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to,
>> >> total or partial
>> >>
>> >> disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the
>> >> intended
>> >>
>> >> recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please
>> >> notify the sender by
>> >>
>> >> phone or email immediately and delete it!
>> >>
>> >> *From:*Dhruv Dhody
>> >> *Sent:* 16 June 2014 11:52
>> >> *To:* pce@ietf.org
>> >> *Subject:* PCEP ERO
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Dear WG,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Consider the below topology, PCE computes a path from RTA to RTC.
>> >>
>> >> This path maybe encoded in PCEP ERO as  -
>> >>
>> >> ~ (10.1.1.1, 10.1.1.2, 20.1.1.1, 20.1.1.2)
>> >>
>> >> or
>> >>
>> >> ~ (10.1.1.2, 20.1.1.1, 20.1.1.2) [without local IP address of ingress]
>> >>
>> >> IMO both should be considered as viable options.
>> >>
>> >> Is there any reason for PCC to consider one of them as incorrect?
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >>
>> >> Dhruv
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >> Dhruv Dhody
>> >>
>> >> System Architect,
>> >>
>> >> Huawei Technologies India Pvt. Ltd.,
>> >>
>> >> Banagalore
>> >>
>> >> Mobile: +91-9845062422
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pce mailing list
>> Pce@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email