Re: [Pce] Query on Usage of LSP Identifier TLV in SR

[Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]>]

Hi Robert,

I disagree with you, I don’t think we need RSVP-TE semantics here, in the implementations I'm aware of LSP Identifiers TLV is not used.
END-POINTS object is used to identify the tunnel endpoint addresses.

I do agree that SR draft should be clear about this and we will update it.

Cheers,
Jeff

From: Robert Varga <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 04:29
To: Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Query on Usage of LSP Identifier TLV in SR

On 10/12/2015 07:58 AM, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
Hi Authors,

In the stateful PCE draft [1], it says –
The LSP Identifiers TLV MUST be included in the LSP object in PCRpt
messages for RSVP-signaled LSPs.

The SR draft [2] did not mention anything about LSP Identifier TLV.
And in implementations that I am aware of, SR-TE LSP still uses the LSP-Identifier TLV. Is that correct? (I personally think so!!)

If yes, do you think there is a need to update –

-      [1] to say all LSPs (and not just RSVP-signaled).

-      Or [2] to say that LSP-Identifier TLV are also applicable to SR and MUST be included.


The wording in stateful draft is meant to proscribe behavior for RSVP (as that is what RFC5440 assumes), while allowing different setup mechanisms (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type/) specify their own LSP identifier format.

In this spirit I think the SR draft should be updated to explicitly state that SR reuses the same identifier format as RSVP (or whatever is appropriate).

Bye,
Robert