Re: [Pce] [PCE]: Draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo: Prefer Intra vs Inter-domain
peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn Tue, 19 September 2023 03:34 UTC
Return-Path: <peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn>
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 20A2EC1524C8 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Sep 2023 20:34:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Fl3WLNwd0LfW for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Sep 2023 20:34:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.216.63.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1E00C151073 for <pce@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Sep 2023 20:34:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-fl2.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.5.228.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mxhk.zte.com.cn (FangMail) with ESMTPS id 4RqS2d1BVKz8XrRK; Tue, 19 Sep 2023 11:34:33 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njb2app06.zte.com.cn ([10.55.23.119]) by mse-fl2.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 38J3YLh8098287; Tue, 19 Sep 2023 11:34:21 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njb2app05[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Tue, 19 Sep 2023 11:34:22 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 11:34:22 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afd650916be79d-b9b2b
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202309191134225633192@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <AM9PR06MB72041F2F6B7C55B09EB59D67A9F6A@AM9PR06MB7204.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
References: AM9PR06MB72041F2F6B7C55B09EB59D67A9F6A@AM9PR06MB7204.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: peng.shaofu@zte.com.cn
To: marcel.reuter.external@telefonica.com
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl2.zte.com.cn 38J3YLh8098287
X-Fangmail-Gw-Spam-Type: 0
X-Fangmail-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-Fangmail-MID-QID: 650916C9.000/4RqS2d1BVKz8XrRK
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/agzIJ3cd-vxHd3mwvgMjTiz-lIo>
Subject: Re: [Pce] [PCE]: Draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo: Prefer Intra vs Inter-domain
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, 19 Sep 2023 03:34:42 -0000
Hi Marcel, May it be a local policy of PCE ? For a given <ingress PE, egress PE> that belongs to the same domain, it may be the default policy for PCE to calculate a candidate path intra domain. Otherwise, it may bring unnecessary complexity. For example, for a real inter-domain path requirement of <ingress PE, egress PE> that belongs to the different domain, the intention is to split the path calculation requirements into multiple domains, e.g, <ingress PE, ABR1> for domain 1, <ABR1, ABR2> for domain 2, etc. Now, in this case, does <ingress PE, ABR1> itself again get a inter-domain path ? In theory, yes. But in reality, it doesn't make sense. Regards, PSF Original From: MarcelReuter(External) <marcel.reuter.external@telefonica.com> To: pce@ietf.org <pce@ietf.org>; Date: 2023年09月15日 16:25 Subject: [Pce] [PCE]: Draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo: Prefer Intra vs Inter-domain _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce Aloha, Dear colleagues, I have a question regarding the PCE with SR Flex-algo and multiple IGP domains. In my understanding in each IGP Domain the Flex-Algo is calculated independently of each other domain. The PCE should have the view of all IGP domains, including IGP metrics and delay metrics. So if the PCE calculate a path and ingress and egress PE are in the same IGP domain, It would be preferable to choose an IGP intra domain vs using another IGP as transit. Or at least have the possibility to choose or prefer an Intra-Domain path (with a flag maybe?) Reason: Especially in mobile operator RAN networks, there could be bandwidth limitations in RAN IGP domains, but still a lower delay path. What’s your opinion about this? Thanks Marcel Este mensaje y sus adjuntos se dirigen exclusivamente a su destinatario, puede contener información privilegiada o confidencial y es para uso exclusivo de la persona o entidad de destino. Si no es usted. el destinatario indicado, queda notificado de que la lectura, utilización, divulgación y/o copia sin autorización puede estar prohibida en virtud de la legislación vigente. Si ha recibido este mensaje por error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y proceda a su destrucción. The information contained in this transmission is confidential and privileged information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then delete it. Esta mensagem e seus anexos se dirigem exclusivamente ao seu destinatário, pode conter informação privilegiada ou confidencial e é para uso exclusivo da pessoa ou entidade de destino. Se não é vossa senhoria o destinatário indicado, fica notificado de que a leitura, utilização, divulgação e/ou cópia sem autorização pode estar proibida em virtude da legislação vigente. Se recebeu esta mensagem por erro, rogamos-lhe que nos o comunique imediatamente por esta mesma via e proceda a sua destruição
- [Pce] [PCE]: Draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo: Prefer Intr… Marcel Reuter (External)
- Re: [Pce] [PCE]: Draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo: Prefer … peng.shaofu
- Re: [Pce] [PCE]: Draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo: Prefer … Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [Pce] [PCE]: Draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo: Prefer … Samuel Sidor (ssidor)
- Re: [Pce] [PCE]: Draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo: Prefer … Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [Pce] [PCE]: Draft-ietf-pce-sid-algo: Prefer … Andrew Stone (Nokia)