TR: [Pce] Comments on draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-igp

["LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN" <[e-mail]>]

Sent again
This email was not received on the pce list.


________________________________

	De : LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN 
	Envoyé : mercredi 21 juin 2006 19:32
	À : 'Lucy Yong'; 'Zhang Renhai'; [e-mail]
	Objet : RE: [Pce] Comments on draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-igp
	
	
	Hi Lucy,
	 
	Thanks for this feedback,
	 
	A PCE that sends a request to another PCE can be considered as a PCC, it is actually acting as a PCC. Hence, as discussed in the requirement ID, there is no need to, and we do not, make the distinction between discovery by PCCs and discovery by PCEs...
	A PCE that wants to discover other PCEs in the IGP domain simply needs to listen to IGP advertisements defined in this draft  (i.e. it acts as a PCC).
	 
	Hope this clarifies
	 
	Best Regards,
	 
	JL
	 
	 


________________________________

		De : Lucy Yong [mailto:[e-mail]] 
		Envoyé : mercredi 21 juin 2006 19:21
		À : LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN; 'Zhang Renhai'; [e-mail]
		Objet : RE: [Pce] Comments on draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-igp
		
		

		Hello JLLR,

		 

		The draft covers various discovery requirements as mentioned in section 4.2. Good work.

		Once thing I would like to get clarification is that the draft focus on the discovery between a PCC and a PCE, a PCE and domains that the PCE has visibility and can compute paths, and a PCE and domains that the PCE can compute paths toward. The draft also mentions that PCE information is disclosed to PCC.

		 

		From these set of discoveries, I could not see if the discoveries also include the discovery between PCEs and information changes between PCEs. Maybe I miss them in context. Could you help to clarify?  

		 

		Best Regards,

		Lucy 

		 

		
________________________________


		From: LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN [mailto:[e-mail]] 
		Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:54 AM
		To: Zhang Renhai; [e-mail]
		Subject: RE: [Pce] Comments on draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-igp

		 

		Hi Zhang,

		 

		Please see inline,

			 

			
________________________________


			De : Zhang Renhai [mailto:[e-mail]] 
			Envoyé : mardi 20 juin 2006 05:26
			À : LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN; [e-mail]
			Objet : Re: [Pce] Comments on draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-igp

			Hi, Jean-Louis

			 

			See inline, please.

				----- Original Message ----- 

				From: LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN <mailto:[e-mail]>  

				To: Zhang Renhai <mailto:[e-mail]>  ; [e-mail] 

				Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 4:23 PM

				Subject: RE: [Pce] Comments on draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-igp

				 

				Hi Zhang

				 

				Thanks for your comments

				 

				Please see inline,

					 

					
________________________________


					De : Zhang Renhai [mailto:[e-mail]] 
					Envoyé : mardi 13 juin 2006 09:07
					À : [e-mail]
					Objet : [Pce] Comments on draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-igp

					Hi, all

					 

					I recently read the draft draft-ietf-pce-disco-proto-igp again, here are some comments。

					 

					When IGP is used as a PCED protocol, the capabilities of pce will be advertised periodicly along with other lsa/lsp information. In my opinion, unless the PCE's capabilities change,  there is no need for the PCC to receive and handle the information again.  

					 

					JLLR: But these are standard IGP procedures. This is the same for link states, they are refreshed even if there is not change. By the way the refresh interval can be quite large (e.g. 18 hours for IS-IS).

					 

					 

					 

					 Furthermore, if most of the routers in a domain will always have no request to a PCE, there is also no need for them to maintain the information.  

					 

					JLLR: In this case PCE discovery is deactivated on these routers and they will not process the PCED and PCES TLVs...

			But I don't know if it is possible for a router to be re-configured as a PCC or have some path computation request after it receives these TLVs and not processes them,  

			 

			Now if a router is configured as PCC at some point in time, then it starts processing information carried in PCED and PCES TLVs...(Before you activate PCE discovery on the PCC the information is stored but not processed).

			 

					 

					 

					My concern to PCE-DEST-DOMAINS sub-TLV is that we can't anticipate how many destination domains a PCE can  computate path towards, as a result,the length of space taken by this capality in the message can't be controlled.  

					 

					JLLR: Actually you have the same problem with the number of TE-links advertised by an LSR or the number of reacheable prefixes advertised by an ABR. 

					One may limit by configuration the number of dest domains advertised.

			But I still doubt that if it's needed for the PCE to maintain such information and how a PCE obtains these info? 

			As discussed latter this is a really useful feature that helps PCE selection and load balancing.

			In the inter-area case, the can learn this info both via config and via the IGP (e.g. if the PCE is an ABR, it can easily know attached areas).

			In the inter-AS case, the PCE can learn this information both via config and via BGP. 

					 

					 

					 So I think if the PCC send a request to a PCE which can't compute the path for the reason of the destination domain, the PCE can tell the PCC in the PCrep message the right PCE.  

					 

					JLLR: But how the PCE will have the information?

					 

					 One additional quesion: is it suitable for the PCE to have such ability to know exactly the destination domain it can compute towards? 

					 

					JLLR: This is actually required. For instance in an inter-AS case, an AS may be connected to multiple ASs, and there may be multiple PCEs in this AS (e.g. ASBRs), each responsible for computing path towards a given neighbord AS.

			Here you said the neighboring AS, but not the destination AS. 

			 

			It was an example where the destination is located in the neighboring AS... But the same applies when the destination is located farther.

			 

			Thanks 

			 

			JL

					 

					Some functions specified in the PATH-CAMP-CAP sub-TLV are also defined in the PCEP,  a clear division should be made.  

					 

					 JLLR:  Actually, at the time being the PCEP spec does not define any capability information.

					In current PCEP spec, we only mention that detailed capabilites could be carried in optional sub-TLVs of the Open object (carried in the Open message).

					But you are right such capability information may be carried in PCEP.

					 

					The idea would be to carry simple capabilities in the IGP and more complex capabilities in PCEP.

					 

					Anyway I don't really see any issue if we define two ways to carry some pieces of information:

					-IGP-based capability discovery is useful for PCCs that don't have a PCEP session with the PCE.

					-PCEP-based capability discovery is useful when IGP based discovery is not activated. 

			This sounds fine to me.

			 

			Regards,

			Zhang 

					 

					 

					Thanks for these comments,

					 

					Regards,

					 

					JL 

					 

					 

					 

					 

					Cheers,

					 

					Zhang Renhai

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce