Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07 (and Code Point Allocation)

Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> Sun, 28 March 2021 23:53 UTC

Return-Path: <hayabusagsm@gmail.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 4B3BD3A2A1D; Sun, 28 Mar 2021 16:53:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 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, 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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qvvEPYybYGUY; Sun, 28 Mar 2021 16:53:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-x102c.google.com (mail-pj1-x102c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102c]) (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 278283A2A1F; Sun, 28 Mar 2021 16:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-x102c.google.com with SMTP id cl21-20020a17090af695b02900c61ac0f0e9so7338757pjb.1; Sun, 28 Mar 2021 16:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=VrmlM14IGaR0B7W9sWPdvfzX/kwEwvEI5RkYrIS1uGs=; b=ssTsEXoywKeFFefbfnJdO8KZH5+1EUgKcppwp/kpgmhSDMlqG5l9g4UoOuY+TA73qc tHyHFzHVWkw/8agfPcS7Hn/UfuSUo37as+Ky4NLBcnRbIYdNyq9nVCGI+SE+GjxZKc99 1Pikw8bmvWAsLq6xPXvEUfRYOv5npzpV4+IfEJsdusDs+lPSrP4g8U0W27jqW8mGGU4A 2zTQeW/0nacCHE9deLc5IefME/R4CX4h05DQN1nPji4ENrIQfkdfKHwgPWUXHq/u8mQF SfVMTcsMFk3naHTEOLStJDsleM4EPUKvuRxkojhRLSRuwaeiKsYGOgX4JjWvU+vTmISr R/Lg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=VrmlM14IGaR0B7W9sWPdvfzX/kwEwvEI5RkYrIS1uGs=; b=Oc07a2XKaD4BzzyjRsQ8Vsr0bJYOtOmtXr+VZtZZknj/yqwzCdkbS+dlE+dm9Si8Mr 7macWf86lRf6QO2vLAksCubjuWShgocstHhiGD3lDS28KyzmBd8wkAbrDLQ+ehc9ZrOi ULAyfE3HwnRTbbbwt0elud0aYJ/O6wQIcpoUqyD3M9LuWtIcajGZ98L6uhlsAx4njFCB ACPaNCnWKWmF1VuwRjff60kOkaOt1rV0Zp3RH3OzYhB+Rwvgt52qili0t9fsSHnScCz5 TzR4vpyIyoc9BXCt6AJepZe/efqaW0kFN/BN6TvEXa86zgsUAQK7QGY3Qb1450ksBopC l2Mw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532wg6ov0v7hT6hNwUKTK/Ewozjf27JEPTS70zUbjx807tS4S9ci InHcFVYXTMFGTNa1LIwVyhZSqv3b4yiwaDKPlhsc6ogr
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwqgcxUB7LJryvap4pX8NEwYKx/L2pOlf66eg/YL7g0qE6YGhTT1oLH+GqQ+TEE6Kizi0QqtKMnbjouXJnBFvU=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b289:b029:e4:bc38:a7 with SMTP id u9-20020a170902b289b02900e4bc3800a7mr25776168plr.50.1616975587778; Sun, 28 Mar 2021 16:53:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <7010_1616065722_605334BA_7010_19_1_3f1d8d24-af98-f962-95ea-0e6ec46b738c@orange.com> <375C800D-2014-4D14-830E-0D15439B9F20@nokia.com> <a2f9686490a34a39af5f977cf59230b7@huawei.com> <B3B06655-1F99-416A-AF8F-9FA53E6DB0BB@nokia.com> <be741e7913304da8a3afd9b1f3cbd1fb@huawei.com> <CABNhwV044vY4tQP6OJhwDWAkMYnD+i=OVKURb1y8eJeMLSHL_A@mail.gmail.com> <CANJFx2T8ZBucUDM+D5UrJ-eF_EKA3Y-Qd2R-6ksX5U_vDJJzhw@mail.gmail.com> <CABNhwV2anNySChRZ_SyE4Fx6+0CeU=R+ZzLPDM3BDhspkOUZMw@mail.gmail.com> <CANJFx2TPPP6ffisALzgkHh6q_x9CpxyxZbf+qiPx62dCbd_RrA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANJFx2TPPP6ffisALzgkHh6q_x9CpxyxZbf+qiPx62dCbd_RrA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2021 19:52:56 -0400
Message-ID: <CABNhwV3ZgXhGwO56fz4Wxz2tYT9DW14KmB_v8q4sf-mLUkZDWw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Siva Sivabalan <msiva282@gmail.com>
Cc: "Chengli (Cheng Li)" <c.l@huawei.com>, "Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <andrew.stone@nokia.com>, "draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid@ietf.org>, "julien.meuric@orange.com" <julien.meuric@orange.com>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000085273105bea177e3"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/lxJZvrMO9DMB2emsfjSU9a7vZEY>
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07 (and Code Point Allocation)
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: Sun, 28 Mar 2021 23:53:14 -0000

Hi Siva

I believe  I was missing the signaling aspect for the PCE to build the
contiguous end to end LSP and that requires BSID to be signaled over
RSVP-TE which is although agnostic to data plane BSID component binding the
candidate path to the forwarding plane, is a requirement for end to end
control plane signaling for the single LSP end to end path instantiation.

The BSID signaling concept is somewhat analogous concept to LDP tunneling
over RSVP-TE tunnel stitching for an end to end LSP instantiation.

Thank you Siva for the clarification.

Gyan

On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 7:33 PM Siva Sivabalan <msiva282@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Gyan,
>
> This ID is all about signaling BSID for RSVP-TE tunnels and SR policies
> via PCEP.
>
> Please do not confuse signaling aspects with how BSID is used.
>
> There is no change required in the ID.
>
> Thanks,
> Siva
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 7:25 PM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> All
>>
>> After further review with Siva the use case is for connecting SR islands
>> over RSVP-TE core.
>>
>> So this is for stitching SR-TE on the edge islands binding SID to core
>> RSVP-TE tunnel.
>>
>> One major gap  of RSVP-TE is the VRF / VPN coloring capability that in
>> order to achieve per VRF coloring mapping of VRF to a discrete TE tunnel
>> requires a separate loopback and static routes to egress PE so it does not
>> scale.  So for as many RSVP mapped tunnels that exist you need that many
>> loopbacks and static routes for the next hop rewrite to the RSVP tunnel
>> next hop.
>>
>> So this Major gap is filled with SR VRF and app flow coloring capability
>> that with SR-TE Policy BSID bound to candidate path can provide the
>> scalability per VRF coloring.
>>
>> So at the edges you may have many 100s of colored RSVP tunnels but as the
>> core does not scale you can not provide a 1-1 mapping of SR-TE tunnel to
>> RSVP tunnel.  So you would have many to 1 mappings of SR-TE tunnels to
>> single or aggregate.
>>
>> So in my mind to only way the BSID would come into play is if you could
>> do a 1-1 mapping of SR-TE tunnel to RSVP tunnel.  Technically that is not
>> possible.
>>
>> For PCE to compute end to end path in this scenario does RSVP-TE require
>> the BSID for the stitching even if a many SR-TE colors to single RSVP-TE
>> tunnel mapping. I would not think so.
>>
>> If we think that for PCE to build the end to end path even for the end to
>> end path in this scenario requires BSID binding to the RSVP-TE single path
>> to make contiguous end to end then I agree technically we do need to make
>> this inclusive of RSVP-TE.
>>
>> I think we need to clear this up and if this use case is really not
>> feasible then we should remove any mention of BSID use with RSVP-TE tunnel.
>>
>> Kind Regards
>>
>> Gyan
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 3:05 PM Siva Sivabalan <msiva282@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Gyan,
>>>
>>> BSID can be allocated for RSVP-TE as well, and yes, there are use-cases
>>> for that. The proposed PCEP extension is equally applicable to both SR-TE
>>> and RSVP-TE.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Siva
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 1:40 PM Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I support WG LC advancement of this draft for publication.
>>>>
>>>> I see there are a lot of comments related to a mix of verbiage related
>>>> to MPLS label binding and Binding label SID confusion.
>>>>
>>>> Few comments.
>>>>
>>>> The draft title states “carrying binding label/sid in PCE based
>>>> networks”
>>>>
>>>> In the abstract it states it is possible to associate a BSID with a
>>>> RSVP signaled path.
>>>>
>>>> I don’t recall any RSVP extension to support concept of BSID usage on
>>>> an active Candidate Path option ERO.  Can you refer me to the RFC that
>>>> states how BSID is used with RSVP TE.
>>>>
>>>> For more clarity with this draft can we replace
>>>>
>>>> s/TE/s/SR as TE nomenclature refers to RSVP-TE and does add confusion
>>>> where SR is SR.  When mentioned traffic engineered path please spell out or
>>>> say SR path for clarity.
>>>>
>>>> Also the “TE-PATH-BINDING TLV” can we change to “SR-PATH-BINDING TLV”.
>>>>
>>>> The word “binding” is very confusing as it’s used interchangeably with
>>>> label binding and binding SID.
>>>>
>>>> So I am thinking a more appropriate name for the TLV would be
>>>> “SR-TE-BSID TLV”.  Makes it clear and concise the TLV is for SR-TE.
>>>>
>>>> Kind Regards
>>>>
>>>> Gyan
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 9:45 PM Chengli (Cheng Li) <c.l@huawei.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks again for your help!
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheng
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) [mailto:andrew.stone@nokia.com]
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 2:42 AM
>>>>> To: Chengli (Cheng Li) <c.l@huawei.com>om>; julien.meuric@orange.com;
>>>>> pce@ietf.org
>>>>> Cc: draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid@ietf.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for
>>>>> draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07 (and Code Point Allocation)
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Cheng,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for clarifying the text in the document. Diff content looks
>>>>> good to me, much clearer. Consider my comments resolved.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>> Andrew
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2021-03-25, 10:49 PM, "Pce on behalf of Chengli (Cheng Li)" <
>>>>> pce-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of c.l@huawei.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>     Hi Andrew,
>>>>>
>>>>>     Thanks for your comments, please see my reply inline.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Also, the diff is attached.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Respect,
>>>>>     Cheng
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     -----Original Message-----
>>>>>     From: Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) [mailto:
>>>>> andrew.stone@nokia.com]
>>>>>     Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2021 4:21 AM
>>>>>     To: julien.meuric@orange.com; pce@ietf.org
>>>>>     Cc: draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid@ietf.org
>>>>>     Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for
>>>>> draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07 (and Code Point Allocation)
>>>>>
>>>>>     Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>>     Overall Support WGLC. It's an important document in the world of
>>>>> SRTE, and the document goes to good lengths to describe the various
>>>>> scenarios and combinations.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Only one question I have for the authors and WG, for any further
>>>>> clarification on the following text (section 4):
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>       The absence of TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in PCUpd message
>>>>>        means that the PCE does not specify a binding value in which
>>>>> case the
>>>>>        binding value allocation is governed by the PCC's local policy.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     I find the "governed by PCC local policy" a bit too vague and
>>>>> could lead to implementation interop differences. Assuming a PCInitiated
>>>>> LSP that been established with a BSID: If the PCE wants to withdraw the
>>>>> binding SID , I interpret the document as the PCE would send a PCUpdate
>>>>> without the TLV, but the behaviour is now up to PCC as per that text. if
>>>>> the PCC local policy/implementation is to do nothing, how can the PCE
>>>>> explicitly force-remove the BSID with a PCUpdate? In a similar manner, If
>>>>> the PCE does not want to change the value but PCC local policy is to treat
>>>>> missing TLV as remove, then PCE should always send the TLV in every
>>>>> PCUpdate (which I'm okay with) which is not stated, otherwise the local
>>>>> policy/implementation may interpret it as a removal compared to an
>>>>> implementation which may interpret it as being okay to not send the TLV on
>>>>> every PCUpdate since there was "no change".
>>>>>
>>>>>     In summary: might need a bit of a wording to further detail "PCE
>>>>> wishes to withdraw" case.
>>>>>
>>>>>     [Cheng] You are correct, there was some issues with multiple
>>>>> TE-PATH-BINDING TLV. This has been updated. See the diff.
>>>>>
>>>>>     The above text has been updated to -
>>>>>
>>>>>        The absence of TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in PCUpd message means that
>>>>> the
>>>>>        PCE does not specify a binding value in which case any previous
>>>>>        allocated binding values are withdraw.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Further, the PCC's local policy aspect has been seperated out as -
>>>>>
>>>>>        In the absence of any instruction from the PCE, the PCC's local
>>>>>        policy dictates how the binding allocations are made for a
>>>>> given LSP.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     Thanks!
>>>>>     Andrew
>>>>>
>>>>>     On 2021-03-18, 7:09 AM, "Pce on behalf of julien.meuric@orange.com"
>>>>> <pce-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of julien.meuric@orange.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>         Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>>         This message initiates a 2-week PCE WG Last Call for
>>>>>         draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07. Please review and share
>>>>> your
>>>>>         feedback, whatever it is, using the PCE mailing list. This
>>>>> WGLC will end
>>>>>         on Thursday April 1st (no kidding).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         Moreover, we have received a request from the authors for a
>>>>> code point
>>>>>         allocation to support interoperability testing.
>>>>>
>>>>>         RFC 7120 requires to meet the following criteria to proceed:
>>>>>
>>>>>         b. The format, semantics, processing, and other rules related
>>>>> to
>>>>>         handling the protocol entities defined by the code points
>>>>>         (henceforth called "specifications") must be adequately
>>>>> described
>>>>>         in an Internet-Draft.
>>>>>         c. The specifications of these code points must be stable;
>>>>> i.e., if
>>>>>         there is a change, implementations based on the earlier and
>>>>> later
>>>>>         specifications must be seamlessly interoperable.
>>>>>
>>>>>         If anyone believes that the draft does not meet these
>>>>> criteria, or
>>>>>         believes that early allocation is not appropriate for any other
>>>>>         reason, please send an email to the PCE mailing list
>>>>> explaining why. If
>>>>>         the chairs hear no objections by Thursday, March 25th, we will
>>>>> kick off
>>>>>         the "early" allocation request.
>>>>>
>>>>>         Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>>         Dhruv & Julien
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>         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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Pce mailing list
>>>>> Pce@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>>>>
>>>> *Gyan Mishra*
>>>>
>>>> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>>>>
>>>> *Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *M 301 502-1347*
>>>>
>>>> --
>>
>> <http://www.verizon.com/>
>>
>> *Gyan Mishra*
>>
>> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
>>
>> *Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com>*
>>
>>
>>
>> *M 301 502-1347*
>>
>> --

<http://www.verizon.com/>

*Gyan Mishra*

*Network Solutions A**rchitect *

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



*M 301 502-1347*