[Pce] draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls next steps!

Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Mon, 05 July 2021 06:42 UTC

Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A1F23A1C0D; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 23:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.086
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.086 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_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0tSkazNruZPp; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 23:42:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x429.google.com (mail-pf1-x429.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::429]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F82F3A1C0C; Sun, 4 Jul 2021 23:42:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x429.google.com with SMTP id y4so15843502pfi.9; Sun, 04 Jul 2021 23:42:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=W9hkOu2F/HMvXCh1K2r2H6+IhjTLpgHnUAjBj1e2VPc=; b=kk1WjXJbTG0o0YbXNdN5fmk7teNPGHAge3YtNkTO4Zn56udyIDZ3sHqRzbN5pzrMgk 8aZqMTNaJHg7ilry+yglY+vwbHwrw9LTj17paWxkoIVkdR35eNqmn0ES7szCYUoLGCWq TTyMARUvYmUP54tdmSHSPUqabGaicjnnvkOCMr8pB0ggaiM6sEb2x3t/juzIKG0aTcSf StHryV0yS5S/MKrdCecgkfLNjgqly+0KP6SwSE92z9wRMBR9XfRWdndl99qBH1A3HV5b 9DOEVwLWmwB94xIi/QX4Z/+4ixMA4du4qPphXMpoBd75mN4xiZ+ls1N4ASZjzTS5P5wy +L2w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=W9hkOu2F/HMvXCh1K2r2H6+IhjTLpgHnUAjBj1e2VPc=; b=crkPF1xQ15btq7TMmc7Z+8M8/HXjsLcFAyP1Q2dw9GZ5+5mrQEABBUjIwYZnvOBwjW EK5aI7MV3SSoFIhBFAom1uCNN1/1to0EPC0kSooyC7EB2ai82JaEwyDhB/esxUJpg2F7 f0/tGE/TZcQKasN1BYUSdHX23AKhcQw4MOoEoQ8qy2e9cPhcAUcLGD+CFCtgw/wWfRl9 mqJ+AMipoak0vNWkvmRF9m04VyeeXha79qH7h2FjDk108ZMcsh6eyuVjmGr1XSjitwKm OSBlLc372haCBrMnkKVVsU8UVUqTTgs2dJm9g8F6LhQGfOWhscEqYnhyRdKIBoW6ASOS 2nOg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530mJaxBk4CyXOylDuaUqGwhGxHlQLgfvuaj2+iIy3r6fxDTgPi+ C8kEyfTItJNknUBJAS0ROvdWhJygn30YFneSyKIGzcx6bb0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwkDQlbjYwH7YBVIfAKlgyuB9tzqHaxy0W7VI/kxweXf1DvPg4RsXhd1n8zIZafPB4jEW1ooatN8Ysfq/oz+Ik=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:130a:b029:308:ebec:33d0 with SMTP id j10-20020a056a00130ab0290308ebec33d0mr13586459pfu.20.1625467364937; Sun, 04 Jul 2021 23:42:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2021 02:42:34 -0400
Message-ID: <CABNhwV1hby7ap3DWQzxB2aV+ggVCeuDL89SNfaMA6RH0XiC8sQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com>, "draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls@ietf.org" <draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls@ietf.org>, pce-chairs <pce-chairs@ietf.org>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e1917c05c65a9cef"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/jETqXz9_djRTd6D5fq0cbImIfaY>
Subject: [Pce] draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls next steps!
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: Mon, 05 Jul 2021 06:42:52 -0000

Dear PCE WG,

We presented the PCEP-LS [1] I-D [2] in the IETF 110 with a quick recap and
a summary of past discussions. Some new scenarios such as PCECC, H-PCE were
highlighted where the PCEP session could be reused.

This is an experimental I-D with the aim to progress research and
development efforts. This work is not a replacement for any of the existing
mechanisms. There are specific scenarios highlighted where the reuse of
PCEP sessions for this information is deemed useful. To make progress, it
may not be useful to rehash the beauty context between everyone's favorite
protocol :). What would be useful would be - finding out if there is still
interest in this experimental work by some in the WG; are there strong
technical objections for the experiment in its limited scope etc...

As a next step, it would be good to define the scope of the experiments and
expected output especially targeting the scalability concerns as well as
impact in other protocols and the network, etc.

>From the last query on this draft March 18th we received positive feedback
from Aijun Wang with China Telecom mentioned that as a telco are interest
in deploying in their network PCEP-LS once the Huawei implementation is
ready.  Aijun pointed out in the thread that using this draft simplifies
the implementation of SDN controller.  One question asked by Aijun was
related to section 9.2.1 LS Capability TLV R=1 remote allowed meaning
hybrid mode to provide flexibility for operators not yet using SDN
(SDN-like) SBI.  For any operators already using PCEP as SDN (SDN-like)
SBI, a direct PCEP session already exist between all the nodes in the
network and the PCE which would be the PCECV SDN scenario in which case the
R flag in the open message is set to 0.

We also received positive feedback from Peter Park with telco KT regarding
interest in PCEP-LS.

We also had feedback from Bin as they have implemented PCEP and have
interest in this experimental implementation of this work.

I would like to poll the WG again for interest in progressing research and
development efforts of this draft as experimental.

As stated in the last WG poll, I would like get feedback from the WG on
scope of experiments especially related to scalability concerns and impact
to other protocols on the network.


Gyan (on behalf of co-authors)


[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls/



*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions Architect *

*Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*

*M 301 502-1347*



*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

*Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*

*M 301 502-1347*