[Pce] comments on draft-sivabalan-pce-policy-identifier
Girish Birajdar <girish134@gmail.com> Fri, 06 November 2015 18:57 UTC
Return-Path: <girish134@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F5D21B2EEB; Fri, 6 Nov 2015 10:57:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 zmTY2aPFAt1w; Fri, 6 Nov 2015 10:57:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ig0-x22c.google.com (mail-ig0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22c]) (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 B68F31B2EEA; Fri, 6 Nov 2015 10:57:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by igpw7 with SMTP id w7so44134423igp.0; Fri, 06 Nov 2015 10:57:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=dBxYhTEA3zT6d2QUQPtoty54fMtshSP5L/xU0L/O4aM=; b=neIJuo3nadYqCAQFEH/omssYR+h8zIT4xXk5fGH0C5Z/aUZPJ8GrtrqEzKlgp1O8wh DGmG5qIYj0y5ohb0gIyj4q8HqvR3vwyGyWpDmYV3uNISrBR8qP3sy8CqKnluY9fwJj+0 FkR4JAjmkNUOpOS7Myz/Qu93iI8XwL2UiMLkcJ5ucVFzeGhDPBApFAuOQealVh1tF89W Fet7Jd9UOKfCB6XQk8blpm9s4RE9JzJlYEDFQxybEo7h4JS+F9p5dLMpuAAGBodh5CVt AdBerlYeGd0WwZb1rtd7H0w8MmBFrveXkMcAHpps0bM4wXAr7gjatS0cdWiBZHmLHEDc iAZQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.41.74 with SMTP id d10mr11071521igl.94.1446836234190; Fri, 06 Nov 2015 10:57:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.64.240.20 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Nov 2015 10:57:14 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2015 10:57:14 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJO-zKc8mWQ-wHafSqU6jq-Y5r=aP4TthEVGj5N8eRK5ey8RqA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Girish Birajdar <girish134@gmail.com>
To: draft-sivabalan-pce-policy-identifier@ietf.org, pce@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e01229c14c9857f0523e3cf0e"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/mC78_S2Bpe-hFfvt87dUOdc7uB4>
Subject: [Pce] comments on draft-sivabalan-pce-policy-identifier
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 06 Nov 2015 18:57:16 -0000
Authors,
1. The objective seems to be similar to draft-alvarez-pce-path-profiles-04.
I believe this draft simplifies the encoding aspect by sending the
policy-id with RP/SRP object.
2. "operation" section mentions PCErr with Error-Type = 2 (Capability not
supported), this implies the PCC should not send more requests with
profile-id.
Wouldn't it be better to advertise the PCE capability in Open message?
3. Motivation "a PCC can request a path that is diverse from any other path
originating from other PCC(s) from a stateful PCE."
For the above application, the process in
draft-alvarez-pce-path-profiles-04 is better - IHMO. The first profile-id
could be used for "path diversity" policy - the extended profile-id would
be used for grouping the LSPs that need to be path-diverse. The 2nd profile
id was added in last draft.
In current draft, operator has to allocate multiple policy Ids for "path
diverse" (one each for group of path diverse LSPs) - the 24bit range is
probably sufficient, however there is overhead on operator to manage
profile-ids across different policies.
3b. It would not be possible to reserve IDs for policies mentioned in
motivation i.e. path diversity. If more policy application are desired -
use of reserved value eliminates configuration on PCE (operator side). I
believe this was possible with draft-alvarez-pce-path-profiles.
Regards,
Girish
- [Pce] comments on draft-sivabalan-pce-policy-iden… Girish Birajdar