IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pce] Whither Stateless PCE?

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Thu, 07 April 2016 04:47 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 3769F12D113 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 21:47:52 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] 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 0qFej_rzQyYB for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 21:47:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F057812D0A3 for <pce@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 21:47:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u374liHc026831; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 05:47:44 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (static.66.246.111.190.cps.com.ar [190.111.246.66] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u374leZd026816 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 7 Apr 2016 05:47:42 +0100
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Dhruv Dhody' <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <091b01d19036$a22f2f10$e68d8d30$@olddog.co.uk> <CAB75xn7UKxZwq0zWXRopPyrtGfaYpP31jzMbGF3SsUB9CEQLuA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAB75xn7UKxZwq0zWXRopPyrtGfaYpP31jzMbGF3SsUB9CEQLuA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 05:47:37 +0100
Message-ID: <0a5a01d19088$9ddea060$d99be120$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0A5B_01D19090.FFA79C40"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHQ+FqU3ZnnqVgVCKG/MbuzF+kBNwHnlzqCn2/ihKA=
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.0.0.1202-22244.005
X-TM-AS-Result: No--16.639-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--16.639-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: UP6whsI5SHJbJCKOm3VRCfyxRm9de9dAWkELK4zKWBcvQLdglQ2eCi1t Ls1NsGNWvCCmpyR752YOrlBkQa9qFm2siTY6Sb7GSSUXkvSVAdxnXTApdRZecsJpuYMPeOMP4O8 4ozOuIbs7AlLA+5S9uHuj1rd2bQSYgHzgwy8qV5qVvypVes2MRec5XWER/hLR+SWVHcE+bywXIJ WO/t2Wjts7Xz27FojnuIwLnB3Aqp335oyDOKIp99qqof+gfD6RNSLatMg7EYbZoTly3PGW4DxWL i6kvreShkzPKp8AvSTHQ8MHM33wrlPniy82Q6c7rGn3BSxZVNSfDbhnsR1ZxmU2c2hZebn2fFu+ wrUioa1o/Fuzia7ebUDDiiGBpf4Zv8jdqvFOu+IUQcVgeLmlhODGRKQQH0pij1mbw6/tKmuIbw7 sIXTQE0qXm4MPqTr271Wx2uUbPLf9sV9Tla1qi1cbfIj2Ta9s5NS4QOzMK7t7CjyP3UZ5MbpGAQ 2wD/3Qyx6w4CJ+2uX2Ii0VSfdeQzuvYa1v2IFhTx0U/40+rr6JW14oA532uCWuqxiUeEX6MLog8 0/xRYlR4vrwuhcS/AVOLlPuctdqLdLfmiFS7fuSs1st/hpgblzOKVR59i8DP5mpBtPr/e7et/aE QRVJHkNKRRr2LbXrWCjDJRYeAZ0BL/XzNFFmHxS11FlOYRohXalr5okxvJr/+eSpHPvf+nPdcTG Dah5F6UYoyREFdoxB6yOrxc8xu5dhffisWXfH55TSoW/nwH6VIEi8fvjB8mtqvVA5MKaPOXn4hA BxhWTyUQNiagGSs9sfxZpQv2qM5VDS2tfzNYKbKItl61J/yZUdXE/WGn0FSXhbxZVQ5H8umHyty u1nD43xzVTbr7Y3BbkrDhhsyASIwLVp8tW/pzNW/Q+Wwu0G
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/nuPONGZyEeWt2RJQ8IW-jOPAs_s>
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] Whither Stateless PCE?
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
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, 07 Apr 2016 04:47:52 -0000

I think you are probably right, Dhruv.
 
But referencing the ways in which customers deploy may be a little limiting. 
To say PCE is widely deployed (even after all these years) may be an exaggeration. 
Although we do have some clues about what is currently being pushed for deployment.
 
I think you have mainly grasped my point, however. We need to understand which extensions are definitely only needed in one mode or another, and which should be done in all modes (either because they are needed or because we don't know).
 
OTOH, I suppose TLVs are just TLVs. Once you specified the TLV it is not rocket science to include it in a message. In fact, it is probably one line of text to include it and only a short paragraph to describe additional processing in other modes once you have described how it is used in one mode.
 
Where does that leave us?
 
Adrian
 
From: dhruvdhody@gmail.com [mailto:dhruvdhody@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: 06 April 2016 23:07
To: Farrel Adrian
Cc: pce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] Whither Stateless PCE?
 
Hi Adrian, 
 
Even in the brave new world of Stateful PCE, PCReq and PCRep messages do play a role in the passive stateful PCE mode. PCReq/PCRep also play a crucial role in the inter-domain and inter-layer context in the new proposal like stateful H-PCE. 
 
At the same time mandating that every extension (say SFC) must also be specified in a stateless manner when no customer deploy in such a way, might be overkill. 
 
Perhaps we need to look at it case by case! 
 
Dhruv 
 
On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
Once upon a time, in a working group far, far away, PCE was basically stateless.
PCE acted in response to questions asked by PCCs.

These days, everyone is excited by stateful PCEs and there is a lot of
initiation (of LSPs or of control of LSPs).

In the jabber room during today's meeting Ravi noted that not a lot of the new
drafts (maybe none of them) talk about PCReq messages. This raises the question
in our minds as to whether stateless PCE is obsolete.

If (and only if) this mode of PCE usage has gone out of fashion, we *might*
consider cleaning up the protocol and architecture so that we don't need to make
protocol extensions to PCReq and PCRep messages when we make extensions to
PCInit messages.

Thoughts?

Adrian

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email