IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Pce] Comments on draft-zhang-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls:

"Margaria, Cyril (NSN - DE/Munich)" <cyril.margaria@nsn.com> Thu, 21 February 2013 11:44 UTC

Return-Path: <cyril.margaria@nsn.com>
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 A54E521F8D9C for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 03:44:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.524
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M3YEdp564dWy for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 03:44:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (demumfd002.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3EBB21F84E0 for <pce@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 03:44:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id r1LBi9fo005781 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:44:09 +0100
Received: from DEMUHTC002.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.42.33]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id r1LBi8hZ005304 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:44:08 +0100
Received: from DEMUMBX006.nsn-intra.net ([169.254.6.244]) by DEMUHTC002.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.42.33]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:44:08 +0100
From: "Margaria, Cyril (NSN - DE/Munich)" <cyril.margaria@nsn.com>
To: "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>, "draft-zhang-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls@tools.ietf.org" <draft-zhang-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls@tools.ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-zhang-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls:
Thread-Index: Ac4QKMHpsICkLcwmRuqMJNJGNQMmqA==
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:44:08 +0000
Message-ID: <8DC6547C806B644F998A0566E79E15920F7CFCDA@DEMUMBX006.nsn-intra.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.159.42.118]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-purgate-type: clean
X-purgate-Ad: Categorized by eleven eXpurgate (R) http://www.eleven.de
X-purgate: clean
X-purgate: This mail is considered clean (visit http://www.eleven.de for further information)
X-purgate-size: 2160
X-purgate-ID: 151667::1361447049-0000547A-D0B7F618/0-0/0-0
Subject: [Pce] Comments on draft-zhang-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls:
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:44:13 -0000

Hi PCEers

I did not see any reply on my previous comments I repost them with separate threads, as the initial one were big
1.      Section 2.2.1 : this is not only useful for stateful, but also for stateless, this should be integrated to draft-ietf-pce-inter-layer-ext
2.      Section 2.3 : is this GMPLS specific or stateful specific?
3.      Section 2.4 : IMHO this should not be necessary, the generic part should describe how  to deal with non-supported objects,
4.      Section 2.5 : This seems generic, I would expect a new section in the WG document describing this generic procedure, it does not match the scope of this document.,
5.      Section 2.6 : how is this GMPLS-specific? This should be another set of extensions maybe.

My understanding is that the required extension to support an *active* stateful PCE for GMPLS network is contained in section 2.4, which indicates the following:

   o GENERALIZED BANDWIDTH -> Object, optional in the GMPLS extensions BTW
   o PROTECTION ATTRIBUTE -> this should be LSPA PROTECTION-ATTRIBUTE TLV --> This is already supported by draft-crabbe-pce-stateful-pce-mpls-te-00
   o Extended Objects to support the inclusion of label sub-object
      - RP
     - IRO
     - XRO
 --> Those are not specific to GMPLS

So the only missing object to support active stateful GMPLS PCE is an optional GENERALIZED-BANDWIDTH, this does not seem a big requirement.
I would rather see one solution for passive stateful and one for active stateful than a mix of passive and active, plus 3 similar RSVP-TE solutions.



Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best Regards
Cyril Margaria

Nokia Siemens Networks Optical GmbH
St.Martin-Str. 76
D-81541 München
Germany
mailto:cyril.margaria@nsn.com
Phone: +49-89-5159-16934
Fax:   +49-89-5159-44-16934
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nokia Siemens Networks Optical GmbH
Geschäftsleitung / Board of Directors: Gero Neumeier, Dr. Rolf Nauerz
Sitz der Gesellschaft: München / Registered office: Munich
Registergericht: München / Commercial registry: Munich, HRB 197143

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email