IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pce] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-10

"Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <jclarke@cisco.com> Wed, 28 August 2019 15:23 UTC

Return-Path: <jclarke@cisco.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 91F6B1200E3; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 08:23:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 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_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=S4Ob7gG9; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=pas3yrfM
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 5zQumiO7lGUv; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 08:23:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C322112000F; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 08:23:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=933; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1567005822; x=1568215422; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=QKjBV9RSRZ0bzn+6vz3AFf0pPVcIMat33tv3GsfP6a8=; b=S4Ob7gG9UkLDBVMp+r7C6HzHFt4gNtAtv4OLtuT6R6ZY6td9EYYTxl3i I5RWQWERwchnJ10BrOT5wfqYZLQBIfGT+6Pf7MbTWrFWnRoHIBRO45f1w fN6QV5cqualgXrVVnMbOXoeppNQTeJEOJqymB2Uz438Sq6+6ChikEhEJs E=;
IronPort-PHdr: 9a23:sUm8UB/jHGcJev9uRHGN82YQeigqvan1NQcJ650hzqhDabmn44+8ZB7E/fs4iljPUM2b8P9Ch+fM+4HYEW0bqdfk0jgZdYBUERoMiMEYhQslVcyODUThL/PCZC0hF8MEX1hgrDm2
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ANAADAm2Zd/4oNJK1lGgEBAQEBAgEBAQEHAgEBAQGBVAQBAQEBCwGBRFADgUMgBAsqCodeA4puglyXaoEugSQDVAkBAQEMAQEtAgEBhD8CglAjNQgOAgMIAQEEAQEBAgEGBG2FLgyFSwEBAwESKAYBATcBBAsCAQg2EDIlAgQOJ4MAgWsDDg8BAqElAoE4iGGCJYJ8AQEFhQ4YghYJgTQBi3YYgUA/gTgfgkw+hB4mgz2CJox5kEyOPAkCgh6UUBuCMpYnjyKWewIEAgQFAg4BAQWBUQE2gVhwFWUBgkGCQoNyilNygSmLOoEwAYEgAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,441,1559520000"; d="scan'208";a="316054097"
Received: from alln-core-5.cisco.com ([173.36.13.138]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 28 Aug 2019 15:23:42 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-017.cisco.com (xch-aln-017.cisco.com [173.36.7.27]) by alln-core-5.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x7SFNf4h018031 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 28 Aug 2019 15:23:42 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) by XCH-ALN-017.cisco.com (173.36.7.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 10:23:41 -0500
Received: from xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) by xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 10:23:40 -0500
Received: from NAM05-DM3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 10:23:40 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=OtgLItFObdid7zhfa2XPJE9czEQLwyOrFTsD/jpbgHkvYT09r4Sydqb/MSRvH24hPD27w1UttC91c4yCCFVoH3LxBsYNJ1AE0QHodyOZf1LoIhFTJYezNg1ORSZicTcuTwDknkEvfIjxBCf6BWjgPAJvFDum1oqvFCbfCrWGBo9TABe3yOQIK9n+BMIATA6IGOnOQOk0ZIJBNzqAfmNH1pegHCsfB7BdSM2RJW45q7uyaNOVH+fewPCr/O6ZYoBBmSC3OZVpINcrJjO5TIGhNBvo0+TfFEiKF3hUd6fJEWEsttKMRACgqALKV+ddVb6DVBJO1VU4IYRbxQpFL3pSIA==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=xHU49bOO9p/2WOLPjws3st8hjKcOWM7k7eDI33ndFhg=; b=ZYWQkpi2ChVatcrZKgw+4QHzArWv4jisOU9ZA/qYK7Icsz47ovOj/T0LlKxtIw+kllOiApsIvUqPWF5TpvagkeTzJPxS3c218HjB7XuPxbzZ/fkIasPQpo4JdG5IDwMDWC1uvCTFpNkWXGiJYVUK+QU2UpG43j0lNGF7VaLsSoxDuwYsh+sJwsRvVz16EBbFzfIlWWtk2OkpTxw96vt6OxHnKWLhlrTIWJZaMYbcJGWYlyzw+i58s43P7B3EwpxhfFI1Flkt8Wdgz35h+POOu6JRFS5BSxJYhXjixYANlssSDXnUGzJzQYJp3jAdc9VplNf6cnkdEzCzWvtW0nTKLA==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=xHU49bOO9p/2WOLPjws3st8hjKcOWM7k7eDI33ndFhg=; b=pas3yrfM1hU7Kwl5EUngZNmwRMBdwKpsmqZ0iJsX06nj9h9K/XW4ofc6hnlM83uGFHJNspE7FVxD/SQsGKSu76klEBeU3AF4605km1qf0agdPOMTXgJqzg73PXdgr7gpo2sMJ0gbcwwAHS+7XFHOZaWA4cLkEnjggT52FPgRiHE=
Received: from DM6PR11MB3418.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.177.219.223) by DM6PR11MB2795.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.176.95.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2178.18; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 15:23:40 +0000
Received: from DM6PR11MB3418.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::88db:8b96:71f6:bc9]) by DM6PR11MB3418.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::88db:8b96:71f6:bc9%5]) with mapi id 15.20.2199.021; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 15:23:40 +0000
From: "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <jclarke@cisco.com>
To: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" <ietf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-10
Thread-Index: AQHVXW2mYWas/CAokESVW7PzSklw46cQrkgA
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 15:23:39 +0000
Message-ID: <C98A0D20-0B5F-4E73-96EF-678DA2048F7D@cisco.com>
References: <156684817455.30577.2295871305402533561@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAB75xn6f_uqorZ9QLezSLqQH5jkKewYXq8FM5sWTf9PYgUtGhw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAB75xn6f_uqorZ9QLezSLqQH5jkKewYXq8FM5sWTf9PYgUtGhw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=jclarke@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [70.231.19.155]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: eee5788c-7bea-4bdf-69d8-08d72bcbb466
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600166)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:DM6PR11MB2795;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM6PR11MB2795:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM6PR11MB2795ED218D19C06B76CFDC3DB8A30@DM6PR11MB2795.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 014304E855
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(4636009)(366004)(39860400002)(136003)(396003)(376002)(346002)(199004)(189003)(53936002)(2906002)(33656002)(6486002)(76116006)(91956017)(66556008)(26005)(66946007)(64756008)(66446008)(7736002)(6506007)(305945005)(66476007)(54906003)(14454004)(186003)(316002)(66066001)(6916009)(6116002)(3846002)(8936002)(6246003)(8676002)(102836004)(81166006)(81156014)(4326008)(229853002)(36756003)(476003)(14444005)(256004)(76176011)(99286004)(5660300002)(2616005)(86362001)(4744005)(11346002)(71190400001)(25786009)(446003)(6512007)(6436002)(478600001)(71200400001)(486006); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DM6PR11MB2795; H:DM6PR11MB3418.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: jgIlqqhcadQ7cZ47pylfS4Xds1Bw56uzZ+OMrWQqdMqgUCOL5X9pZUQiDWpwfxv9FgK/0YcngKhBA3TMvzIF2dYvJLztIGFkWAmtOFH5f246kuTINKJ9AbKoqHT+YMD9Z7zIWGBaWQxZNfV8QrTTK0LmnBVeH4rY2XPda+EfkPMILIO/In+46i8jQGtG/2BC+N7+HMSsUVZvr/FhlxpMzRJoh+78cAlF8xvTe22ceShXALzCLmtJTGs9Oi4RKRzIayW+lihlF+BiwEySR3Re1316aOUG/GtI/BbvCG093F52QqyhBF2VTYxPVrkJuImrzNCb03wyrvb75wmuoh4vLFGHS+HfOs9JZ4gTtFhQY/nqLGP2vAE8HcMkRFMbz+HoLsPYMBZ9C9aNo7pKDuk7yzweNGeK34RVO/O/Cc5ln2I=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <4B5D14A8410C254495B70FD019A9C2EE@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: eee5788c-7bea-4bdf-69d8-08d72bcbb466
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 28 Aug 2019 15:23:39.9821 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: MG2wSL8fMTH7gckKs2EByrTFImOUnFF9xQX45JjigJHPqrs0KSe+yDagvFFVY7TaQOiFxOKqaaaaievIbWN74Q==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR11MB2795
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.27, xch-aln-017.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-5.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/fpZNn9-UQdzpC2QN1GJUxSr3hP4>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-10
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 15:23:46 -0000

> This is a good suggestion, we will update.

Thanks.

> 
>> ===
>> 
>> In section 6.6, do you have any more concrete recommendations on a reasonable
>> limit of LSPs with auto-bandwidth that you have discovered from testing or
>> operational experience?  Providing some data here may prove useful, even if it
>> is somewhat anecdotal.
>> 
>> 
> 
> We discussed this and felt reluctance in putting a number down in the
> RFC, esp when we don't do it for our base published RFCs (ex. such as
> how many LSPs can be delegated to a PCE). I also checked with at least
> one vendor and was told that it is quite dependent on the deployment
> scenario and would let the operator decide.

Maybe not a hard number, but is there any kind of example you could provide for a given scenario that provides clearer guidance on what kind of impact  each one of these LSPs would present?

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email