Re: [Pce] Query on Usage of LSP Identifier TLV in SR

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jeff,

[PCEP-SR] did not change the format of the stateful PCE messages (i.e. RBNF of PCRpt/PCUpd); and [STATEFUL-PCE] does not have END-POINTS object in those messages.
Only PCInitiate message [PCE-INITIATE] has END-POINTS object.

In the implementations I am aware of, LSP Identifiers TLV is carried in PCEP-SR.
One way to find middle ground would be, to make LSP Identifiers TLV as optional for PCEP-SR, with a use-case during delegation of a PCC configured LSP via PCRpt message.

Regards,
Dhruv
[PCEP-SR] https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-06.txt
[STATEFUL-PCE] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-13
[PCE-INITIATE] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-05



From: Jeff Tantsura [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: 12 February 2016 06:42
To: Robert Varga; Dhruv Dhody; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Pce] Query on Usage of LSP Identifier TLV in SR

Hi Robert,

I disagree with you, I don’t think we need RSVP-TE semantics here, in the implementations I'm aware of LSP Identifiers TLV is not used.
END-POINTS object is used to identify the tunnel endpoint addresses.

I do agree that SR draft should be clear about this and we will update it.

Cheers,
Jeff

From: Robert Varga <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 04:29
To: Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Query on Usage of LSP Identifier TLV in SR

On 10/12/2015 07:58 AM, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
Hi Authors,

In the stateful PCE draft [1], it says –
The LSP Identifiers TLV MUST be included in the LSP object in PCRpt
messages for RSVP-signaled LSPs.

The SR draft [2] did not mention anything about LSP Identifier TLV.
And in implementations that I am aware of, SR-TE LSP still uses the LSP-Identifier TLV. Is that correct? (I personally think so!!)

If yes, do you think there is a need to update –

-      [1] to say all LSPs (and not just RSVP-signaled).

-      Or [2] to say that LSP-Identifier TLV are also applicable to SR and MUST be included.


The wording in stateful draft is meant to proscribe behavior for RSVP (as that is what RFC5440 assumes), while allowing different setup mechanisms (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type/) specify their own LSP identifier format.

In this spirit I think the SR draft should be updated to explicitly state that SR reuses the same identifier format as RSVP (or whatever is appropriate).

Bye,
Robert


本邮件及其附件含有华为公司的保密信息，仅限于发送给上面地址中列出的个人或群组。禁
止任何其他人以任何形式使用（包括但不限于全部或部分地泄露、复制、或散发）本邮件中
的信息。如果您错收了本邮件，请您立即电话或邮件通知发件人并删除本邮件！
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it!