[Pce] [PCE]:New Version Notification for draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position-05.txt

xiong.quan@zte.com.cn Sat, 20 February 2021 08:15 UTC

Return-Path: <xiong.quan@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 4BDE93A0BFA; Sat, 20 Feb 2021 00:15:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.894
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.894 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 IUmflDM99JJL; Sat, 20 Feb 2021 00:15:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 458093A0BFC; Sat, 20 Feb 2021 00:15:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mse-fl1.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.14.238]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 9D70B37DA8D345885D46; Sat, 20 Feb 2021 16:15:35 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp05.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.204]) by mse-fl1.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 11K8FM0F008364; Sat, 20 Feb 2021 16:15:22 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from xiong.quan@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp03[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid201; Sat, 20 Feb 2021 16:15:22 +0800 (CST)
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2021 16:15:22 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afb6030c51a4fdc9d3a
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202102201615225016703@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <161380622613.26226.4965005813111025052@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: 161380622613.26226.4965005813111025052@ietfa.amsl.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: xiong.quan@zte.com.cn
To: dhruv.ietf@gmail.com, tsaad.net@gmail.com, slitkows.ietf@gmail.com, lizhenbin@huawei.com
Cc: pce-chairs@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org, draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-fl1.zte.com.cn 11K8FM0F008364
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/g7ZiLi5iWJmnjwe01a3TaH1HwUY>
Subject: [Pce] [PCE]:New Version Notification for draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position-05.txt
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: Sat, 20 Feb 2021 08:15:49 -0000

Dear Dhruv,Stephane,Zhenbin Li,Tarek and WG,






I just submitted a new version of the draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position-05. This draft has been presented in IETF 106 and 107. Many thanks for your comments and discussions. 






First, I think we have the consensus that in case of inter-domain scenario, PCE would be useful for computing both SR path and the placement of entropy labels. We should propose a set of extensions for PCEP.






Second, I fully agree with that the ingress MUST support the capability of  inserting multiple ELI/ELs and it needs to advertise the capability to PCE. So I think we should add the capability in OPEN message from PCC to PCE. In the current version, we define the E bit for a PCC  to  indicate that it supports the capability of inserting multiple ELI/EL pairs and and supports the results of SR path with ELP from PCE. What is your suggestion? If the E bit is enough? Or should we define the BGP/IGP extension?






Finally, thanks to Zhenbin, I need to clarify that the ELI/EL pairs are calculated for a specific traffic flow but the placement of the ELI/EL pairs are calculated for a SR-path. In our draft, we propose the PCEs perform computation of SR-path with the the placement of the ELI/EL pairs and the value of ELI/EL pairs are calculated  at the ingress.






I look forward and appreciate any comment and suggestion from you.






Thanks,


Quan
















主 题 :New Version Notification for draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position-05.txt



A new version of I-D, draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position-05.txt
has been successfully submitted by Quan Xiong and posted to the
IETF repository.
 
Name:        draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position
Revision:    05
Title:        PCEP Extension for SR-MPLS Entropy Label Position
Document date:    2021-02-19
Group:        Individual Submission
Pages:        9
URL:            https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position-05.txt
Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position/
Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position
Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position-05
Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-peng-pce-entropy-label-position-05
 
Abstract:
   This document proposes a set of extensions for PCEP to configure the
   entropy label position for SR-MPLS networks.
 
                                                                                   
 
 
Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
 
The IETF Secretariat