IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pce] draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce : clarifying the End Of Synchronization marker

Robert Varga <nite@hq.sk> Mon, 27 June 2016 11:46 UTC

Return-Path: <nite@hq.sk>
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 D91BF12D12E for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jun 2016 04:46:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.426
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.426 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hq.sk
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 VmNkKQGY95g4 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jun 2016 04:46:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hq.sk (hq.sk [81.89.59.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91D0912D122 for <pce@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jun 2016 04:46:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.137.1.13] (46.229.239.158.host.vnet.sk [46.229.239.158]) by mail.hq.sk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 180BC242EA2; Mon, 27 Jun 2016 13:46:19 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hq.sk; s=mail; t=1467027979; bh=3WttoH4VPk8vuRckbvkqFwVTzxjzYT5GJSoGLDKDoR0=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=WKiRajgMk3fju7VoRXQlPOX5ONGrseubApJMELBcjonaaT3o6v2qc753rvaSFVIW4 hmya3BP9NFlWc7ApiveKfw9YHq84Izv/E+fnh20dcRICdJuQSKSVBlpNKE8Qagr45Z 4maffnsXkk6c8y6FW8KIv2DzG2vRCfxja+YFTszs=
To: stephane.litkowski@orange.com, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
References: <6628_1466522294_57695AB6_6628_1808_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF921BC748AC@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <30191_1466690095_576BEA2F_30191_1888_19_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF921BC7C68F@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Robert Varga <nite@hq.sk>
Message-ID: <b5f39b1b-d08b-ca45-b3d5-b155ff7cfa8d@hq.sk>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 13:46:10 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <30191_1466690095_576BEA2F_30191_1888_19_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF921BC7C68F@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="MdWkI8JDBimi35noCUvSdOqgIjh8LnqEo"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/eeP0FBgN6bQc6J9PbGK7UyiHOj8>
Subject: Re: [Pce] draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce : clarifying the End Of Synchronization marker
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:46:24 -0000

On 06/23/2016 03:54 PM, stephane.litkowski@orange.com wrote:
> Hi again,
> 
> We also found an issue when a PCC removes a LSP. It would be good to precise the objects that are mandatory, optional in this case also. 
> Some PCE implementations are waiting for an ERO in the PCRpt that removes an LSP, while some PCC does not send an ERO. 
> Would be good to clarify the procedure of LSP removal.

Hello,

I think section 6.1 on PCRpt message format covers this: ERO is
mandatory in all cases. I could not find any text which would imply this
should not be the case for R=1.

Bye,
Robert

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email