Re: [Pce] draft-hsd-pce-sr-p2mp-policy wiki comments and action.

["Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Aijun

Thanks you for your comments.

Inline

Regards
Hooman

From: Aijun Wang <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 3:01 AM
To: 'Dhruv Dhody' <[e-mail]>; Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [Pce] draft-hsd-pce-sr-p2mp-policy wiki comments and action.

Hi,

My consideration is that if the solution depends on the distribution protocol among the underlay nodes to accomplish the task, then PCE should follow the procedures described in RFC8231, RFC8281 etc. That is to say, in such situation, the instruction from the PCE needs only to be sent to the headend of the path.
HB> no underlay distribution for replication SID, as it is not a P2MP LSP. Replication SID is an individual resource, that can be programmed at strategical node for sole purpose of replication. It can be stitched together via unicast SR. Traffic can be steered out of each OIF via unicast Node/Adjacency SID.
And, if the solution depends solely on the computation of the PCE, and PCE should interact not only the headend node, but also the transit node, tail-end node, follow the PCECC approach is more clear.
Mixed of these two solutions should be avoided.
HB> Agreed that the 2 concept can’t be mixed. A bit of history, my apologies for repetition here:
1.            We did look at PCECC and our first implementation and first draft was based on PCECC and CCI object. We found CCI object for replication SID to be cumbersome, it made the solution much more complicated then what it needed to be. The perfect examples are: the FRR protection path, with CCI the protection path had to be downloaded with every single OIF making the message much larger. In addition for an incoming label and set of outgoing OIF, the CCI solution forced the download of the incoming label and the outgoing OIFs/Labels in order with in a message, making the ordering of the labels and the OIFs very complicated. In short we tried to use the CCI object and it did not fit nicely. Hence why we looked at the ERO object with multipath backup TLV for protection. In addition the replication segment is in “NO WAY” part of an LSP or a P2MP LSP or a static P2MP LSP, it is an individual segment (like a binding SID) programed at a strategic node for sole purpose of replication.
2.            I think above point is driven home. The next suggestion was why not wrap the ERO in CCI object. This is where the authors/co-authors didn’t understand what additional improvement this method would bring into the solution. When the question was posed the answer was consistency “only”. Consistency is great as long as the solution and the implementation does not get complicated and there are obvious benefits to it. The solution is achievable without CCI object, the CCI object and encoding will be there wrapping ERO for no purpose at all.


Best Regards

Aijun Wang
China Telecom

From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 12:48 PM
To: Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Pce] draft-hsd-pce-sr-p2mp-policy wiki comments and action.

Hi Hooman,

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 10:06 PM Bidgoli, Hooman (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Dhruv

I am very confused by your messaging.

Originally it was pointed out that the draft should follow PCECC/CCI.
The authors explained why they feel that is not a good fit.

Now you are mentioning get in part with RFC 8231, 8281 etc... which is a new input. Thank you.

I apologize if I was not clear. As I said in the mail, I still feel PCECC is the way to go. What I want to highlight is that if you consider it as an LSP operation instead, then it should be built on RFC 8623 (P2MP) instead.

The 'recap' was to show how the extensions in PCEP have been done for SR and P2MP in the past in a consistent way.


The authors/co-authors have  tried to keep the draft in par with all the RFCs that you mentioned as much as possible. As it is mentioned in the draft clearly. That said this is new concept and there is a need for a new PCE concept and deviation, hence the draft 😊 and the purpose of IETF.

RSVP-TE P2MP is built via S2Ls.
Replication segment is nothing like S2L, replication segment can be connected via unicast SR.

If you claim that the replication segment can not use RFC 8623, that gives it more of a reason to not consider it as an LSP operation in the first place.

Again we are open for any constructive feedback on how this draft can be improved, in the boundary of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-sr-replication-segment/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-sr-p2mp-policy/

Just to clarify, my feedback is on your choice of PCEP procedure and encoding for the replication segment taking existing PCEP extensions/procedures in mind.  Hope the discussion was useful, it was for me...

Thanks!
Dhruv (as a WG member)

Regards
Hooman


-----Original Message-----
From: Pce <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 8:01 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Pce] draft-hsd-pce-sr-p2mp-policy wiki comments and action.

Hi,

Speaking as a WG member...

Let's continue the discussion on considering the replication segment as an LSP v/s PCECC operation.

I just wanted to quickly recap -

- We have stateful operations for RSVP-TE: RFC 8231, RFC 8281
- We then introduced SR with a minimal extension of new PST and a new SR-ERO subobject: RFC 8664
- We supported P2MP stateful operations for RSVP-TE with RBNF change in PCEP messages: RFC 8623

We have always tried our best to maintain consistency between RSVP-TE and SR in PCEP.

Now, if one considers the Replication segment as an LSP operation, IMHO it needs to be built on RFC 8623 P2MP LSP operations. The current approach does not build on RFC 8623 instead uses the multi-path technique (related to ECMP in P2P [1]). This would deviate from RFC
8623 significantly.

On the other hand, considering the replication segment as a PCECC/CCI operation gives you more leeway to choose an encoding with a new CCI Object type for the replication segment and it could be independent of RFC 8623.

I *still* feel PCECC makes more sense at the higher level too (because of the additional instruction to the leaves and coordination required). Even if one disagrees with that and considers it an LSP operation, it then needs to build on RFC 8623. The current "mashup"
approach (i.e. it is an LSP operation but does not follow P2MP LSP
encoding) does not work well in maintaining consistency within our extensions.

Thanks!
Dhruv (as a WG member)
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-koldychev-pce-multipath/

_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce