Re: [Pce] Implementation option of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-interdomain-01.txt

Dhruv Dhody <> Fri, 26 February 2021 04:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEFA13A0ADD for <>; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 20:35:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HdSD3NpeqbOu for <>; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 20:35:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2B283A0ACB for <>; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 20:35:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id o11so484959iob.1 for <>; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 20:35:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=5qkAkaN3qf1KZt5oybwiC0c8rnQ5Ju6RW4PKqNJaSgo=; b=Hmsczsvy1S9cfVzH8Gvt0nDxJgJcIKraKtp0SkUpK3m0jOGIbNvtuo+noReXj7S5Bn 0daeEh7BSF9ePgVHx2Vfo/qdm+VPuwIiO4VmBOi084qcWpm38VwXWGI2KgyKyPaLS+6t kOi/ftJ/9hJZoj4B/r3bX0p35eUIaH0acFpDHSaJHUwBat0NisZICgJ9C+8oVnY8udSd uEJAhC3iukd8hXQVJHUZUMv97NA39pO3vVNapb8hpTbT4ioIvJZ1lHCOwm1efyIXh2yc 1qyzMoyiLXIjOuttgfdkTwBYFF985QNIkSBXb44vd6mwSqQwWXJFN15Ye22c5YMKsBZp 569g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=5qkAkaN3qf1KZt5oybwiC0c8rnQ5Ju6RW4PKqNJaSgo=; b=PqZ28NmWM65rzbwWc62pYbZ6dpKzSSVRoQFYrE322+5XAUPLQlPOfRWxs3z0jC0nvk w4uuL8o9TRFD8pMM9NjPic17XRoQ7PnV0S4WYsw9IMx8TZG+yggG0ekR5gYKojvL55mw jIQ1kcI2JBvABGUgSOuVTx2aPgt1zBKcYydDzoiqrqD4cTjOjd9b5FA/t7tk/5k+N1qF VIqM1TaTTsAR3g/pACoN04sjSjKYzvNmN11LeMJ44d+lRVpF1D3LD/l4jcMsJnuWbmu4 Tg1PFdO60vVGJGhzER8mee87ZWu8hhNg1jXh1WN2PIdpwe2yu3KRUoIWOBKdnpIvgVEc 5ZYw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533JBUouUoiR1PmQW5LuHr2SWOvh/tv1wmsfbYUbUp7zdr7ccl/C +OSFoikjCfYfR2s6n1ORF82qfUNDmUTEWjT36bQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwaF8KaOdYphG8pKgkcT8BGg4FHmE8PuNezITXvKloCNLpfZK5veLmgpVhEy9RqVD7s7NcIc9jd6xMOaEt7tO0=
X-Received: by 2002:a5e:c60a:: with SMTP id f10mr1324885iok.178.1614314156685; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 20:35:56 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Dhruv Dhody <>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 10:05:20 +0530
Message-ID: <>
To: Olivier Dugeon <>
Cc: "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000dd7df405bc35cd71"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Implementation option of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-interdomain-01.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 04:36:00 -0000

Hi Olivier,

Thanks for starting this thread.

As a WG participant...

On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 12:05 AM <> wrote:

> Dear all,
> According to the remark about implementation we got during the WG call
> for adoption, we would start a new thread to discuss this point.
> The goal isto prepare the discussion for next IETF meeting and reach a
> consensusin order to edit revision 2 of the draft.
> The stitching label principle requires at least a certain number of
> modifications in the current PCEP version:
>  a) A new PCE Capability to announce the inter-domain behaviour
>  b) A new PCE Association Group to associate the local paths identifier
>     to the inter-domain identifier
>  c) new PCEP Errors to manage the Stitching Label exchange
>  d) A mechanism to convey the Stitching Label
> If there is no other choice than to reuse existing PCEP Objects by
> allocating new code points for modifications a-c,there is several
> options for point d, which we have tried to list below:
>  d1) Use ERO and RRO in conjunction to new Path Setup code points as
>      described in version 01 of the draft. It is the simplest
>      implementation but as mention by Dhruv, each time a new path
>      enforcement appear, a new PST code point must be allocated.
>      For example, when Segment Routing v6 will be standardized, we must
>      allocate a new Stitching label PST code point for SRv6.
>  d2) Use ERO and ERO in conjunction to a new flag in LSP. Simple as for d1,
>      but need to use the LSP Extended Flag draft as all LSP flags have
> been
>      already allocated.
>  d3) Same as d2 but find another place for the flag e.g. SRP or LSPA
> Object.
>  d4) Define a new PCEP sub-Objet TLV within the LSP Object to convey the
>      stitching label. This is more independent but need extra parsing from
>      an implementation point of view.
My preference would for d2 or d3 (in that order).
LSP Extended Flag is adopted by the WG and is ready for prime-time use --
let's use it :)
Authors of LSP Extended Flag are waiting for the draft blockade to be
lifted to post the -00 WG I-D.


> Please, give us your opinion about these different options and don't
> hesitate
> to propose others.
> Regards
> Olivier on be-half of co-author's
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez
> recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
> falsifie. Merci.
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
> information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
> delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
> modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list