Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6
Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Tue, 17 January 2023 20:20 UTC
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 04FBFC14CE55; Tue, 17 Jan 2023 12:20:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.208
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.208 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, GB_SUMOF=5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=olddog.co.uk
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L5o4rgLt1c9r; Tue, 17 Jan 2023 12:20:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mta8.iomartmail.com (mta8.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.158]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44820C151538; Tue, 17 Jan 2023 12:20:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (vs2.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.123]) by mta8.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 30HKKHkY014333; Tue, 17 Jan 2023 20:20:17 GMT
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 638774604B; Tue, 17 Jan 2023 20:20:17 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D70B46048; Tue, 17 Jan 2023 20:20:17 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.224]) by vs2.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 17 Jan 2023 20:20:17 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([148.252.132.205]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 30HKKFGO015260 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 17 Jan 2023 20:20:16 GMT
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: pce@ietf.org
Cc: julien.meuric@orange.com, draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6@ietf.org
References: <ea8b1cc1-a755-05a9-e259-812641b92002@orange.com>
In-Reply-To: <ea8b1cc1-a755-05a9-e259-812641b92002@orange.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2023 20:20:15 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <03bf01d92ab1$1cf2c330$56d84990$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQGRFGg3J5l02jbrl7ON98oz5cT8na8zOK5g
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 148.252.132.205
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=olddog.co.uk; h=reply-to :from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s= 20221128; bh=HXnA3Yj2UkSqCMMKIyq+l0rKGsjrT4Cfa+0UI9cffuA=; b=A9Q q49EpYFhHOyxYlBrft68Leat3orEs52djqGMb4ergn/yY0CBn9ZO1Ved8tkpswmD POI3N7LsfR7352x4rfdTxKiRxr7T3pnsOrv/FyjpbgZDuFNwu1Ij3U1MfVJECZX5 /jsSpXOe8+GoR88cHaGMi2rHrrG53QY/s1lAn+CS1iQlqQtK6oMfSqmMD/T7ucp1 Iy/CQ4iuej4rhXjv13M8tWQOYQNudELl2q+fW6K+/l5nX8V2ZEBtQijD5/q0T+97 Ew4aWs8Juz3ruA8MCdOP0wjkQucuVXFsVTBBH3+u1PDIP0wgH9EqZish3uUuiJhK vu0wDr7ATDdxOwTRwUA==
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-9.0.0.1002-27392.002
X-TM-AS-Result: No--20.003-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--20.003-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-9.0.1002-27392.002
X-TMASE-Result: 10--20.003200-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: pS5owHKhBO3xIbpQ8BhdbDjNGpWCIvfTVFeUPAjsd8YvfU/riSJXkZ6l 82yOWcq8+efnbioH6q0LgHgh1AKMZQhqh+u1IaR7GqSG/c50XgPUoMiU4Mi75a0j4OKYdDiCmCg Dq0JHmvl5SOyWpGiOZhn/P+arGvmkxEEtnnH5KRcYBi3BcmOD6Ui8rgutezVpLyCA337gDFd03C oZc3IxYUUwNPOAwLTPr2JV+8YtsaLJjkQZkjYCjkNxBShCnTSwRealVAhocE9WCQv16moG8W2Nl YzGZgQkfNFddAIkgiP23jc+gV6AAAcO+Ovs7EaQC8FMH3T6F743ljUklwm/bikvFki4e3OUhU7W o4d1aF1za7kvcj8NzoYTU56AhNncR0cAoC1UfG2628cXbnOhT8qbccLXl3z7lJBOf2Mfu5o4dX0 pw0mRq5apcCjaUxiEMX80culaIXmJcNczdFvR5B+LUpMHtIEA41DodRHs608Rt1EvyOXA0byokh KR5nQeR6nprnR1P7YaHZJ0H9OHSxzR2dP1ezClWUZrg6bV32cSrxWnE1VUiYc5XWJfryopxw/K9 gjPf8V1hNoJU3VrXAW+FDIXfKElXONecyiT1jAaFFsnNP92o9ld1rSETR9LsT12CIdZena2NT1C GlQHxtT3nBsjS6FoWqLBUk/Na0sQ40rF+sKGggDXfAzhbnshw77CRCdy4LxYfsHHDgAMI14GGHd q7rdYYLsbOMUzyMKcIExPa+EmrsMl8El8Vg3DzNY33yIEF4YZskwWqoib3AKbmRfboIFH0Xr6vj DYWlv677FdU7UtQH5meJa7guBSSSOWVJeuO1CDGx/OQ1GV8is3zPQeiEbe+gtHj7OwNO0CpgETe T0ynA==
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/QNetTAagBLjLS7eqjeOjDx6VILc>
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Tue, 17 Jan 2023 20:20:30 -0000
Hi, Tl;dr I support the adoption of this draft. As a co-author of RFC 8283, I take an interest in this work and the wider applicability of PCECC. I've also been interested in how SID allocation is coordinated, and this seems like a reasonable solution. Given that we have procedures and protocol extensions for PCECC with SR-MPLS, it seems pragmatic to also have them for SRv6. Some comments and nits below, none of which needs to be actioned before adoption. Best, Adrian === Abstract Suggest a paragraph break before "This document" --- Abstract You nicely introduce PCE and PCECC, but don't introduce SR. There is, perhaps, a sentence or two in the Introduction you could borrow... Segment Routing (SR) technology leverages the source routing and tunneling paradigms. Each path is specified as a set of "segments" encoded in the header of each packet as a list of Segment Identifiers (SIDs). You'd then tidy up the subsequent text since there is no need to expand the abbreviations twice. --- Abstract s/SDN and/SDN/ s/in the for /in the/ --- 1. Although PCEP is expanded in the Abstract, you need to expand it on first use in the main body of text. --- 1. s/introduction to SR/introduction to the SR/ a/[RFC8665] ,/[RFC8665],/ --- 1. OLD [RFC8283] introduces the architecture for PCE as a central controller NEW [RFC8283] introduces the architecture for PCE as a central controller (PCECC) END --- 1. It relies on a series of forwarding instructions being placed in the header of a packet. The list of segments forming the path is called the Segment List and is encoded in the packet header. You say "in the packet header" twice. --- 1. PCECC may further use PCEP for SR SID (Segment Identifier) allocation and distribution to all the SR nodes with some benefits. Hmmm. Not sure PCEP is use for allocation. Maybe it is open for interpretation, but possibly... The PCECC may perform centralized allocation of SR Segment Identifiers (SIDs) and use PCEP to distribute them to the SR nodes. --- 1. [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr] specifies the procedures and PCEP extensions when a PCE-based controller is also responsible for configuring the forwarding actions on the routers (SR-MPLS SID distribution), in addition to computing the paths for packet flows in a segment routing network and telling the edge routers what instructions to attach to packets as they enter the network. This document extends this to include SRv6 SID distribution as well. Big question first. I know the history that led us to have one I-D for SR-MPLS and one for SRv6. The question is whether we still need to have that, or we should adopt this document and them move for a merger so that the is just one draft for PCECC-SR. I assume that the philosophy of the PCEP extensions are the same, and that it is just the encoding of SIDs that differs. (See also the end of Section 3.) And then, a rewrite for clarity... A PCE-based central controller may be responsible for computing the paths for packet flows in an MPLS Segment Routing (SR-MPLS) network and for telling the edge routers what instructions to attach to packets as they enter the network. [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce- controller-sr] specifies the procedures and PCEP extensions when a PCE-based controller is additionally responsible for configuring the forwarding actions on routers in an SR-MPLS network (i.e., for SR- MPLS SID distribution). This document extends those procedures to include SRv6 SID distribution as well. --- 2. s/in the document/in/ --- 3. An ingress node of an SR-TE path appends all outgoing packets with a list of MPLS labels (SIDs). I don't think "append" is quite the right word. It has implications of "attach to the end of". Perhaps... An ingress node of an SR-TE path includes a list of MPLS labels (SIDs) in all outgoing packets. --- 3. OLD The SR is applied to IPv6 data plane using SRH. NEW SR is applied to the IPv6 data plane using the SRH. END --- 3. s/paths may not follow IGP SPT/paths might not follow the IGP SPT/ s/specify the SRv6-ERO/specifies the SRv6-ERO/ s/and assume/and assuming/ s/Further Section 3/Further, Section 3/ s/describe the implications/describes the implications/ --- 3. The operator needs to evaluate the advantages offered by PCECC against the operational and scalability needs of the PCECC. Maybe add a forward pointer to Section 9.6? --- 3. OLD As per [RFC8283], PCECC can allocate and provision the node/prefix/ adjacency label (SID) via PCEP. NEW As per [RFC8283], the PCECC can allocate the node/prefix/adjacency label (SID) and provision them via PCEP. END --- 4. s/between the PCE to the PCC/between the PCE and the PCC/ --- 5.2 The material in this section is all good, but I think the flow is wrong. Perhaps... OLD This document uses the same PCEP messages and its extensions which are described in [RFC9050] and [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr] for PCECC-SRv6 as well. The PCEP messages PCRpt, PCInitiate, PCUpd are used to send LSP Reports, LSP setup, and LSP update respectively. The extended PCInitiate message described in [RFC9050] is used to download or clean up CCIs (a new CCI Object-Type=TBD3 for SRv6 SID). The extended PCRpt message described in [RFC9050] is also used to report the CCIs (SRv6 SIDs) from PCC to PCE. [RFC9050] specify an object called CCI for the encoding of the central controller's instructions. [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr] defined a CCI object- type for SR-MPLS. This document further defines a new CCI object- type=TBD3 for SRv6. NEW The PCEP messages PCRpt, PCInitiate, and PCUpd are used to send LSP reports, LSP setup, and LSP update respectively. [RFC9050] describes the use of the PCInitiate message with a new objects called the CCI for encoding the central controller instructions. [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr] defines a CCI object- type for SR-MPLS. This document uses the same PCEP messages and their extensions as described in [RFC9050] and [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr]. It extends their use to PCECC-SRv6. In particular, this document defines a new CCI object-type for SRv6 with type=TBD3. END --- 5.3 OLD A new S bit is added in the PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV to indicate support for PCECC-SR-MPLS in [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr]. This document adds another I bit to indicate support for SR in IPv6. A PCC MUST set the I bit in the PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV and include the SRv6-PCE- CAPABILITY sub-TLV ([I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6]) in the OPEN object (inside the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV) to support the PCECC SRv6 extensions defined in this document. NEW [I-D.ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr] defines the S bit in the PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV to indicate support for PCECC-SR-MPLS. This document defines another bit (the I bit) to indicate PCECC support for SRv6. A PCC MUST set the I bit in the PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV and include the SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV ([I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6]) in the OPEN object (inside the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV) to support the PCECC SRv6 extensions defined in this document. END --- 5.3 If the I bit is set in PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV and the SRv6-PCE- CAPABILITY sub-TLV is not advertised, or is advertised without the I bit set, in the OPEN object, the receiver MUST: * send a PCErr message with Error-Type=19 (Invalid Operation) and Error-value=TBD4 (SRv6 capability was not advertised) and * terminate the session. This is good, but I think it only applies to receivers that are aware of the meaning of the I bit, so... 1. s/the receiver/a receiver that implements this specification/ 2. You need to precede the this text with something like... Implementations that are not aware of the meaning of the I bit will ignore it per Section 7.1.1 of [RFC8090]. Implementations that are not aware of the SRv6-PCE-CAPABILITY sub-TLV but receive one in the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV with the PST value of 3 set (per [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6], will respond as described in Section 5 of [RFC8408]. --- 5.4 s/in TED/in the Traffic Engineering Database (TED)/ s/is used to advertise/are used to advertise/ --- 5.5 s/[RFC8664] specify/[RFC8664] specifies/ --- 5.5 and 7.2 You mention "early allocation by IANA". This is true, but the text will not last well, and there is some risk of it not getting updated. Since the allocation has been made, and since it is the responsibility of another document, I suggest you just drop this text. --- 5.5.1 s/This document proposes/This document describes/ --- OLD 5.5.1.1. PCECC SRv6 Node/Prefix SID allocation NEW 5.5.1.1. PCECC SRv6 Node/Prefix SID Allocation END --- You have: Router-ID (5.4, 5.5.1.1) Router ID (5.4) router ID (5.5.1.1) Maybe need to be consistent? --- 5.5.1.1 s/and the end result is similar/and the end result are similar/ --- OLD 5.5.1.2. PCECC SRv6 Adjacency SID allocation NEW 5.5.1.2. PCECC SRv6 Adjacency SID Allocation END --- 5.5.1.3 s/remains intact till/remain intact until/ --- 5.5.1.6 s/, the PCECC/. The PCECC/ --- 7.1.1 and 10.1 (also draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr) I notice that IANA does not track the bit letters at https://www.iana.org/assignments/pcep/pcep.xhtml#pcecc-capability It may be helpful to get IANA to track the I-bit by making your new entry in the registry... | TBD1 | SRv6 (I-bit) | This document | Similarly, draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-sr might use | TBD1 | SR-MPLS (S-bit) | This document | --- 7.3 If the sum of all four sizes advertised in the SID Structure is larger than 128 bits, the corresponding SRv6 SID MUST be considered invalid and a PCErr message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-Value = TBD ("Invalid SRv6 SID Structure") is returned. draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6 has already assigned the value 37. Further, I think you need to make it clear that the behavior you are describing is already specified elsewhere. So... NEW According to [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-ipv6], if the sum of all four sizes advertised in the SID Structure is larger than 128 bits, the corresponding SRv6 SID is considered invalid and a PCErr message with Error-Type = 10 ("Reception of an invalid object") and Error-Value = 37 ("Invalid SRv6 SID Structure") is returned. END --- 8. You reference RFC 7525, but that was obsoleted by RFC 9325. I suspect that all you need to do is make an update to the new reference. --- 9.5 I think I agree with what you have written, but I wonder what happens if PCECC is used per this document at the same time that IGP-based mechanisms are used. Is there a conflict? How is that resolved? Does management play a part? --- 10.2 The CCI Object Type value has been assigned (see RFC 9050). You can replace "TBD" with "44". --- Through-out... It *might* be worth renumbering the TBDs to take care of the fact that there is no TBD2. -----Original Message----- From: Pce <pce-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of julien.meuric@orange.com Sent: 16 January 2023 18:00 To: pce@ietf.org Subject: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6 Hi all, This e-mail starts an adoption poll for draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6-10 [1]. Do you consider this I-D is ready to become a PCE WG item? Please respond to the PCE list, including rationale if you believe the WG should not adopt it. Thanks, Julien [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extension-pce-controller-srv6/
- [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-extensi… julien.meuric
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-ext… Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-ext… Tanren
- [Pce] 答复: WG Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-ext… zhangli (CE)
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-ext… Liang Felix
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-ext… Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong)
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-ext… zhenlin.tan@hotmail.com
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-ext… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-ext… Stefano Previdi
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-ext… Boris Khasanov
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-ext… 庞冉(联通集团中国联通研究院-本 部)
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-ext… Chengli
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-ext… Zhoulei
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-ext… Gyan Mishra
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-ext… Huaimo Chen
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-ext… Lizhenbin
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-ext… julien.meuric
- Re: [Pce] WG Adoption of draft-dhody-pce-pcep-ext… Pengshuping (Peng Shuping)