Re: [Pce] Few comments/queries on draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-04

Cyril Margaria <cyril.margaria@gmail.com> Wed, 10 June 2015 15:04 UTC

Return-Path: <cyril.margaria@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 05B5A1A8777 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 08:04:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 HujjSVVY_9wd for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 08:04:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-x22c.google.com (mail-qc0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A44FC1B2B80 for <pce@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 08:03:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qcej9 with SMTP id j9so18314088qce.1 for <pce@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 08:03:58 -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=I6hPeNeW+3WN0O1bqEdTZkL3EHHKc08SXsXpD5WOQvU=; b=zL9eHy4eOOuSB5dKD43pFGVOoLNN/vawzFz2N1ZKV5XN86KeiSCOa0xY6Q6xaLUBuN CIjz55fJcfcswHmC/UONh0ZQfksfdWVighgLYKWOkxXTK0H23Ls0i4lcFld/UOb37DGX FaQYRxoV4BtuNB4yAMqr4yq9z7bOO94toPSGgWZuFYEhnJCXpxMicZ6l5kUUxHCqUAIw 1i3B5DNnv3H+yusx4U9Q+xfzxLWLlsO9rDqx0hMIQEOu9XiquNsL9bOWYVq/uJfUNqJV P8uIChUAd80/7/kI3ItF9sT/yxWBdCnm4U+SKHcHBrYWeUmUXjTLuT/YgP6JgN7dTqKj 1YGQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.55.17.133 with SMTP id 5mr3267076qkr.18.1433948637949; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 08:03:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.34.132 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 08:03:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <10376B02BC561F4185654159EF7900204593E90C@szxeml561-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <10376B02BC561F4185654159EF7900204593E90C@szxeml561-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:03:57 -0400
Message-ID: <CADOd8-uQHotAibaxFHJJ_motQxth=OHcWS1EHRYL5jE-L4a0-g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Cyril Margaria <cyril.margaria@gmail.com>
To: Venugopal Reddy K <venugopalreddyk@huawei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114712c630f63705182b2fa3"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/c7ZFc7aeFW39ML2fVXyZAvitDB0>
Cc: pce <pce@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Few comments/queries on draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-04
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: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:04:33 -0000

Hi,

On 10 June 2015 at 03:32, Venugopal Reddy K <venugopalreddyk@huawei.com>
wrote:

>  Hi, Everyone!
>
>
>
> Have few comments/queries on draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-04. Could
> you please clarify on below points:
>
>
>
>   Section 6
>
>   In case of PCEP session failure, control over PCE-initiated LSPs
>
>     reverts to the PCC at the expiration of the redelegation timeout.  At
>
>    this point, the LSP is an "orphan" until the expiration of the State
>
>    Timeout timer.  To obtain control of a PCE-initiated LSP, a PCE
>
>    (either the original or one of its backups) sends a PCInitiate
>
>    message, including just the SRP and LSP objects, and carrying the
>
>    PLSP-ID of the LSP it wants to take control of
>
> 1.       In case of Backup PCE, what is the trigger point to send
> PCInitiate message to take control of orphan PCE-initiated LSP? I am
> wondering how does a backup PCE come to know that some LSPs are orphaned?
>
I see two scenarios :
  1) Another PCEP Session is up , in that case it seems to imply that the
PCE(s) keep track of the LSPs it can manage and the liveliness of the other
PCEs.
   2) There is no other PCEP session, the PCC reconnects to another PCE, in
this case the PCE can try to take ownership of the Initiated, not delegated
LSPs

 While I believe 1) is an interesting architecture, I do not think the
protocol procedures should put such constraint to the PCE implementation,
so the second option you propose should be allowed.


>
>
> 2.       Another option would be, if PCC takes charge and delegate the
> orphaned PCE initiated LSPs to backup PCE based on the local policy?
>
>
>
I think this should be allowed, the text could be :

In case of PCEP session failure, control over PCE-initiated LSPs
reverts to the PCC at the expiration of the redelegation timeout.  At
this point, the PCC MAY delegate the LSP to another PCE. the LSP is an
"orphan" until the expiration of the State
Timeout timer.


Some coordination between PCEs is still needed, for the original PCE to
regain control over that LSP the current PCE must forfeit control over that
LSP.

In addition there is no Error to indicate to the PCE that he can't have the
delegation back, this should be added , for instance 24,4

LSP instantiation error, Requested delegation rejected, another PCE
has the delegation. (ideally allow the optional inclusion of the other
PCE SPEAKER-IDENTITY-ID for troubleshooting. it should be subject to
security policies)



>  Response will be appreciated.
>
>
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Venu
>
>
>
> Regards,
 Cyril


> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> Pce@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>
>