Re: [Pce] draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce : clarifying the End Of Synchronization marker

<stephane.litkowski@orange.com> Thu, 23 June 2016 13:55 UTC

Return-Path: <stephane.litkowski@orange.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 8BFC712D134 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 06:55:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.619
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 1gBm0dTkVLsM for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 06:54:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECDCA12D0A9 for <pce@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 06:54:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by omfedm14.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 0646F22C755 for <pce@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:54:56 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.31.17]) by omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id D3BC023807B for <pce@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:54:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::65de:2f08:41e6:ebbe]) by OPEXCLILM24.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::a1e6:3e6a:1f68:5f7e%19]) with mapi id 14.03.0294.000; Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:54:55 +0200
From: stephane.litkowski@orange.com
To: "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce : clarifying the End Of Synchronization marker
Thread-Index: AdHLzvfDtW+i79E3RBes3KvwkfF7MABh4PDQ
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:54:55 +0000
Message-ID: <30191_1466690095_576BEA2F_30191_1888_19_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF921BC7C68F@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <6628_1466522294_57695AB6_6628_1808_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF921BC748AC@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <6628_1466522294_57695AB6_6628_1808_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF921BC748AC@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.3]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 6.2.1.2478543, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2016.6.17.114517
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/je7hEtRRJhDWlkaBoW2LnWxRm1s>
Subject: Re: [Pce] draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce : clarifying the End Of Synchronization marker
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:55:00 -0000

Hi again,

We also found an issue when a PCC removes a LSP. It would be good to precise the objects that are mandatory, optional in this case also. 
Some PCE implementations are waiting for an ERO in the PCRpt that removes an LSP, while some PCC does not send an ERO. 
Would be good to clarify the procedure of LSP removal.


Best Regards,

-----Original Message-----
From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of stephane.litkowski@orange.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 17:18
To: pce@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce : clarifying the End Of Synchronization marker

Hi,

Doing some interop testing between two vendors we falled into misinterpretation of the current text of the End Of Sync marker content.

Here is the current text :

"The end of synchronization marker is a PCRpt message with the SYNC
   Flag set to 0 for an LSP Object with PLSP-ID equal to the reserved
   value 0 (see Section 7.3).  The LSP Object does not include the
   SYMBOLIC-PATH-NAME TLV in this case, it will include an empty ERO as
   its intended path and will not include the optional RRO object in the
   path.  If the PCC has no state to synchronize, it will only send the
   end of synchronization marker."

The current text, IMO, has the following issues :
- it uses non normative wording : "does not include", "will include" , "will not include". How do we need to interpret it ? MUST, SHOULD, MAY ?
- it does not precise if it can include or not some other objects : can it include an LSP-Identifier object (with all fields to 0) ? 


It would be good to enhance the text to better describe the content of EOS.

We suppose that in case there is an issue with the encoding of the EOS marker, the following behavior will be applied, could you confirm ? (typically bad encoding of EOS marker) :
" The PCE does not send positive acknowledgements for properly received
   synchronization messages.  It MUST respond with a PCErr message with
   error-type 20 (LSP State Synchronization Error) and error-value 1
   (indicating an error in processing the PCRpt) (see Section 8.5) if it
   encounters a problem with the LSP State Report it received from the
   PCC and it MUST terminate the session."


Thanks,


 
Stephane Litkowski
Network Architect
Orange/SCE/EQUANT/OINIS/NET
Orange Expert Future Networks
phone: +33 2 23 28 49 83
mobile: +33 6 37 86 97 52
stephane.litkowski@orange.com 


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.