Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-07

Dhruv Dhody <> Wed, 21 August 2019 08:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40C1F12081F; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 01:56:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lEguVzoTQVaO; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 01:56:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3349312088E; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 01:56:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id o9so3063042iom.3; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 01:56:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=SugfEXDf/Ssr0ZwKwpUTgF7z4dyg6PjuWvHQANqhx5Y=; b=m0+c5JlRPj75mZe2LHVKftobQ3LbbIKD5XCBW/Az2vQTwJuJ4A9wBmvQC+vI7XIGIW eBmb60pApd/ylR8ThUPLOonIYVKDR8bSIjhM4/+Oz+G8YS1dq7K2rc/cGSa9/eCkILA6 C+xmI98MnFsWcSsRPofhcg+B4J8IQY88JSDOtuVSeg7dvTNeBQNbyxzW7GefDBOUQoGj RsIWguBmqjVkPC+YFjCUpGy3ZJOCDSI73E7Hj59EZLcB+/DtL7PVrhfI0Q5/zOaG/E3V hlKS+rsUMnp7RVkC8ZRHUEFXIlGE0lhb1uhCGxP6XTgdFf/YdpnvXZyI6rDY4xJ9YG6Y 4eYQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=SugfEXDf/Ssr0ZwKwpUTgF7z4dyg6PjuWvHQANqhx5Y=; b=TSTknP5o2aPBmp+witmb4ZQUvZRRrhTpNbZXerBGqWTmBZP8zTbxS4IlgFpuxtjLZJ JMWRyyy7i6QBvREg0RvB4DRHhQEblgqvZDUVwgmTEF82tA+JvhjfcrIqgUNPG6DYH2li VM7g09jwnPiIeRSjFtYC7gv4WrGFfnMu3AFLvLzqufBxHNd8n7YKDf+bttb1oyS9oJL9 eA3EajdS+9+XCDC1wQxMewBJzbWXwWhHCoXKr6O1zZOk8Uvlm6usJs2qvG17BN2Qr/My QGf4HJ0ctFPdsbSZZS/3t4bjfJqjIC2dGZ4vt7uE5Y84GtwzpMFd6XPW/Xun/hK+DdT5 /dbQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXNZ/+La0QucxI8G0GtHSIMM32zHfG4uLWMNmWKUDAVM4g5SXX5 RnRuk6lZBHHNq5nf03t71rZ7+oqYC2fSg9jn+pM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzY1gyj1qgIn9XkdSL0tA/GJI849seNBAhWXAFqyv8YosEE3oOKi2HTHEwSEOUHzBTHDhIcgXNowIu9C6rAht8=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:c98c:: with SMTP id z134mr5187419iof.276.1566377778159; Wed, 21 Aug 2019 01:56:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Dhruv Dhody <>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 14:25:41 +0530
Message-ID: <>
To: Khasanov Boris <>
Cc: "" <>, pce-chairs <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-07
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 08:56:21 -0000

Hi Boris,

[As a WG participant]

> But what about our traditional distributed case, for example, how Gateway Node 1 (Fig.1 in the draft) would understand that he should allocate a Binding SID towards PCE?
> What will trigger that ?

Currently, the draft says -

   A local policy or configuration at the PCC
   SHOULD dictate if the binding label/SID needs to be assigned.

Otherwise, PCE can trigger the allocation by sending a PCUpd message
with empty TLV as well. Note that this does not require PCECC

   In some cases, a stateful PCE can request the PCC to allocate a
   binding value.  It may do so by sending a PCUpd message containing an
   empty TE-PATH-BINDING TLV, i.e., no binding value is specified
   (making the length field of the TLV as 2).

> Should Gateway Node 1 analyze capabilities of Access node (Maximum SID depth) and make an assumption that it could need a Binding SID?

I doubt this could be automated without the help of PCE.

> IMO, we should think and try to propose some mechanism (besides relying on PCE central controller)  for distributed case to let PCC know that he should create Binding SID and report it to PCE.

So the question is if anything beyond local policy or configuration at
PCC needs to be done. I am not sure...


> Thank you.
> SY,
> Boris
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: Pce [] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody
> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 8:45 PM
> To:
> Cc: pce-chairs <>
> Subject: [Pce] WG adoption poll for draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-07
> Hi WG,
> This email begins the WG adoption poll for
> draft-sivabalan-pce-binding-label-sid-07 [1].
> Should this draft be adopted by the PCE WG? Please state your reasons - Why / Why not? What needs to be fixed before or after adoption? Are you willing to work on this draft? Review comments should be posted to the list.
> One of the chairs did a pre-adoption review [2] and authors posted a new revision. Note that there are known implementations.
> This adoption poll will end on 6th September 2019.
> Thanks!
> Dhruv (for the chairs)
> [1]
> [2]
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list