[Pce] Update to PCEP-LS
Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com> Thu, 02 March 2017 08:04 UTC
Return-Path: <dhruv.dhody@huawei.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 E22CB1294A8 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 00:04:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.222
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.222 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 5vZvm0F2C6nw for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 00:04:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39A0E1294AC for <pce@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 00:04:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DID42746; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 08:04:08 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from BLREML407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.20.4.45) by lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.45) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 08:04:07 +0000
Received: from BLREML501-MBB.china.huawei.com ([10.20.5.200]) by BLREML407-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.20.4.45]) with mapi id 14.03.0301.000; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 13:33:55 +0530
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>
To: "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Update to PCEP-LS
Thread-Index: AdKTKxCQgMy1sF84T6GXz7FDl5ly5Q==
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 08:03:55 +0000
Message-ID: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8CA7BF20@blreml501-mbb>
Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.18.149.39]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020204.58B7D1F9.0078, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 932ae9faa4cb1fd4970e964fbec51757
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/ljKCIhx-GdwQ-hdjFkUU91E4n6M>
Subject: [Pce] Update to PCEP-LS
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, 02 Mar 2017 08:04:15 -0000
Hi WG, Ramon provided comments on the PCEP-LS based on his implementation experience. Thanks Ramon. There are some changes in the draft - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls/ * Clarification of TLV format * Protocol-ID for Unspecified, PCEP-LS and Reserved (0) added The email discussion is included below - Regards, Dhruv >Hi Dhruv, Young > >I have started to implement a subset of PCEPLS and -- still lacking an >in-depth analysis -- I have a couple of questions (sorry if they are >obvious): > >- How do you withdraw a link / node (as in MP_UNREACH_NLRI). Section >9.2.10 refers to remove an attribute (I am still trying to understand the >case where I need to remove an attribute, in our use cases, we announce a >link, update its attributes, and we may withdraw it, but it is strange to >remove an attribute. Maybe it will come more natural when we get more >insight on incremental updates). I considered sending an LS object with all >the attributes following Sect 9.2.10 but I am not convinced. I was expecting >something like a flag in the LS object where I need to indicate e.g. the >link descriptors and it conveys end-of-lifetime for the link/node. > [Dhruv]: Yes you are right, we have the R flag in LS object. o R (Remove - 1 bit): On LSRpt messages the R Flag indicates that the node/link/prefix has been removed from the PCC and the PCE SHOULD remove from its database. Upon receiving an LS Report with the R Flag set to 1, the PCE SHOULD remove all state for the node/link/prefix identified by the LS Identifiers from its database. And only to remove an attribute, we use - 9.2.10. Removal of an Attribute One of a key objective of PCEP-LS is to encode and carry only the impacted attributes of a Node, a Link or a Prefix. To accommodate this requirement, incase of a removal of an attribute, the sub-TLV MUST be included with no 'value' field and length=0 to indicate that the attribute is removed. On receiving a sub-TLV with zero length, the receiver removes the attribute from the database. >- Much like in BGPLS I am lacking the ability to know the switching >capability of a link (generalizing, ISCD / IACD). Is this intentional, >focusing on packet switching? [Dhruv]: This is covered in - https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-pce-pcep-ls-optical-00 [Ramon]: Thanks Dhruv, that was useful. Thanks for the pointer to optical (works for us, but I was hoping to find ISCD Swcap etc. in a wider GMPLS aware context ;) In an "ideal world" I would have assumed pcepls pcepls-gmpls [or even intergated both, but it was not the case with RFC5440, and pcepls-optical but IMHO you can leave it as is :-) >- A small nit for me (ignore) is in RBNF I like to see <foo-list> ::= ><foo> [ <foo-list> ] > >so seeing <ls-report-list> ::= <LS> [ <ls-report-list> ] has been >"mentally" translated to > ><ls-list> ::= <LS> [ <ls-list> ] ><ls-report-list> ::= <ls-list> > >(I am aware both are equivalent and this is so common in RFC that I just >deal with it...) [Dhruv]: As you noted we have a mixed bad, I would like to keep it as it is for now! [Ramon]: Sure,no need to change now. It may be likely that other objects are added in the future (?) >- Typo Sect. 9.2.2 Tho allow -> To allow [Dhruv]: Ack >- I would be explicit in quoting RFC5440 in the TLV format and, more >importantly, I would clearly state that the same TLV format is used for >sub-TLVs (unless I missed it) specially with potential confusion reusing >BGP-LS ? > >- In page 23 the table mentions BGP-LS TLV but only mentions the BGP_LS >TLV for a few of them? On that note... It is fine either way, but I am >curious on why not aligning with the actual values as well? [Dhruv]: We decided to point to IS-IS TLV when that exist, and for new TLVs that were newly created in BGP-LS to point there. We could point to BGP-LS for all, but BGP-LS would itself point to IS-IS adding one more indirection :) [Ramon]: Not a big deal, alternatively you could consider putting the BGP-LS TLV id for all, so from needing to consult IS-IS refs :) [Dhruv]: I wish there was more space in the table for me to do that! > OTOH, this is not addressing why not pick the same values of TLVs as BGP has? (I am fine with any value, but this question is a FAQ) [Dhruv]: With hindsight, yes that could have been done. But at the same time since the padding/length rules are different between BGP and PCEP, one must encode/decode these TLVs independently and maintaining an loose link between them is better. > >- Personally, I would like a protocol_id of 0, unspecified, because I am >exporting a TED that is acutally constructed by multiple mechanisms. [Dhruv]: Correct, I have updated 0 as reserved (similar to BGP-LS). Is that okay? [Ramon]: I was thinking more of a "I don't care" value instead of a "reserved" one (which I cannot use). But since BGP-LS has a "reserved" better stick to it. In other words, I may need to advertise a TED to a p-PCE where the child PCE has constructed the TED from multiple sources without keeping track of it. Additionally, would you include a "pcep-ls" identifier? since you are considering bpg-ls, why not pcep-ls? I am guessing recursive architectures or even the parent PCE advertising the TED to a third party, with the p-PCE having learnt the topology [Dhruv]: Added - Unspecified, PCEP-LS, Reserved. > > >Surely more will come later ;) > >Best regards >Ramon
- [Pce] Update to PCEP-LS Dhruv Dhody