Re: [Pce] draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls next steps!

Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Wed, 25 August 2021 14:30 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 EA8003A079A; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 07:30:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.893
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.893 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AC_DIV_BONANZA=0.001, BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 zGG8zDLzz2To; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 07:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta8.iomartmail.com (mta8.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.158]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 166223A0798; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 07:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs4.iomartmail.com (vs4.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.122]) by mta8.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 17PEU7jT000636; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 15:30:07 +0100
Received: from vs4.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 916344604B; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 15:30:07 +0100 (BST)
Received: from vs4.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D0F946043; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 15:30:07 +0100 (BST)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.249]) by vs4.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 15:30:07 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([195.166.134.103]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 17PEU6W6024109 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 25 Aug 2021 15:30:06 +0100
Reply-To: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Gyan Mishra'" <hayabusagsm@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Dhruv Dhody'" <dd@dhruvdhody.com>, <draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls@ietf.org>, <pce@ietf.org>, "'pce-chairs'" <pce-chairs@ietf.org>
References: <CABNhwV1hby7ap3DWQzxB2aV+ggVCeuDL89SNfaMA6RH0XiC8sQ@mail.gmail.com> <064a01d77c04$59272510$0b756f30$@olddog.co.uk> <CABNhwV3YJW=g_MW5zz7zimB0SFGpgLa=Hd4GUfEAE_nVYyhV3g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABNhwV3YJW=g_MW5zz7zimB0SFGpgLa=Hd4GUfEAE_nVYyhV3g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2021 15:30:06 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <048401d799bd$b3a51c50$1aef54f0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0485_01D799C6.156ABCD0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQKHa/UUVb+o28IZeZd32h3lqa/20gFweG2PAvaN3MOqAWgnsA==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 195.166.134.103
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.1.0.2034-8.6.0.1018-26368.000
X-TM-AS-Result: No--17.399-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--17.399-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.1.0.2034-8.6.1018-26368.000
X-TMASE-Result: 10--17.399300-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: CxmI61mtwh/xIbpQ8BhdbGyGdbpKa3ZskYC3rjkUXRIZSz1vvG+0mn8Q UKQj7GKcI2kEnvfP5Qz/lKr9eAHHdK5IHf53a1H7NVHkqlpj6VW061diBteN11/8lGqVstJXFZV nC8D3nqvvpklAtopUdaIIEAAxxDCctgmeyVW4dFLwpAypldoLOYH6W1z4rzodRLww1u362mvOkH dHgnAI5wLHXPAVyyW9sdwry0ita8i2tlYdo0NnhDcodIZPkEsf6WInigqiFXTe6dEbvIyrxeyoR cNLr2HBZRUjkVFROF6wA5BRgbCHif85GCR7+Gthxti5Nvr5xCDr1pL7v/NuP+QydRUvl3QT9UwO AYlIIGojH86oKTknXSxl8AW7jSyaRFKi3qzuTAmH44R1HPvYvDKLdeHNQhvIhkAAqRrh+7fsB/p vAx9rhB/ZwOWsnFj2IwCoQ/wyoCeo+GjETPk3V+CFhwSlJTKmcylhNIofIQhYC5LPd7BvbfZVM8 z+GJ5qOwomXw2qVMyAusAt+A3derL1SH9TbxovCbXjsXAtrYpPnKxAOPp4WU44tGAVPnlD+hkNz GxJPd44o6c0M4aDj9DV4aR+uSgOBN8atkKwQ1HDbljYsEOaC1+BoH4JnCIGIAYlbMlNS/bTKVeQ zM35vnxi2H7TNiIJW5oAI8GDL6W2Rzj8Revi1Khx+sYfmafeBePf1P4ER8C/md2adk3dRI9/b50 cC04om2VgmZOOf8Vio4v2fqN63NWwZgIRuhGunVB9576siDQ7pfSjRsD2OpOzKHDUo+qQMJwOGs xv4EucR83wb58yA8CL37LIp1YUz5WY0OamOSw0i6L0DcfAAM2bVb+7NBMCST7WciUXn4EmAuHMM ktDut934/rDAK3zGjFMngtLLWicA6dTiL9846a7gQ6dGpX6sjN6ZCLvcgbKfKBkYMjNG4QZieK0 D1ZTEKx5NOolulY=
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/qAa8FPjicRd97_gmBVOOGwPt8MQ>
Subject: Re: [Pce] draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls next steps!
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: Wed, 25 Aug 2021 14:30:20 -0000

Yes, thanks, Gyan.

 

I think you have captured it all, although some of the behaviours are “hidden” in assumptions in the text.

 

That is:

 

*	A PCEP speaker that offers this feature to its peer that does not support or does not wish to support the feature will not receive indication of support in the Open message, and so is expected to not use the feature.

 

*	A PCEP speaker that receives any of the objects that are part of the feature when use of the feature has not been agreed, will <do something> as described in <reference>.

 

Of course, this is “business as usual” but the reviewer of the text will not necessarily know this.

 

Cheers,

Adrian

 

From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com> 
Sent: 25 August 2021 05:44
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Cc: Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com>om>; draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls@ietf.org; pce@ietf.org; pce-chairs <pce-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls next steps!

 

Hi Adrian 

 

 

See section 1.1 should have answers to your questions related to the experimental draft.

 

 <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls-21.html#section-1.1> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls-21.html#section-1.1 

 

Kind Regards 

 

Gyan

On Sun, Jul 18, 2021 at 2:40 PM Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk <mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk> > wrote:

Hi Gyan,

 

I am very much in favour of positioning this work as Experimental. 

 

It is important (as with all IETF Experiments) to capture:

-          What stops this extension “escaping" in the Internet?

-          What stops this experiment clashing with other work or harming deployed equipment? 

-          How will you judge the success or failure of the experiment, and when? 

-          What follow-up to the experiment do you propose?

 

Best,

Adrian

 

From: Gyan Mishra <hayabusagsm@gmail.com <mailto:hayabusagsm@gmail.com> > 
Sent: 05 July 2021 07:43
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk <mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk> >; Dhruv Dhody <dd@dhruvdhody.com <mailto:dd@dhruvdhody.com> >; draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls@ietf.org <mailto:draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls@ietf.org> ; pce-chairs <pce-chairs@ietf.org <mailto:pce-chairs@ietf.org> >; pce@ietf.org <mailto:pce@ietf.org> 
Subject: draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls next steps!

 

 

Dear PCE WG,

 

We presented the PCEP-LS [1] I-D [2] in the IETF 110 with a quick recap and a summary of past discussions. Some new scenarios such as PCECC, H-PCE were highlighted where the PCEP session could be reused. 

 

This is an experimental I-D with the aim to progress research and development efforts. This work is not a replacement for any of the existing mechanisms. There are specific scenarios highlighted where the reuse of PCEP sessions for this information is deemed useful. To make progress, it may not be useful to rehash the beauty context between everyone's favorite protocol :). What would be useful would be - finding out if there is still interest in this experimental work by some in the WG; are there strong technical objections for the experiment in its limited scope etc... 

 

As a next step, it would be good to define the scope of the experiments and expected output especially targeting the scalability concerns as well as impact in other protocols and the network, etc.   

 

>From the last query on this draft March 18th we received positive feedback from Aijun Wang with China Telecom mentioned that as a telco are interest in deploying in their network PCEP-LS once the Huawei implementation is ready.  Aijun pointed out in the thread that using this draft simplifies the implementation of SDN controller.  One question asked by Aijun was related to section 9.2.1 LS Capability TLV R=1 remote allowed meaning hybrid mode to provide flexibility for operators not yet using SDN (SDN-like) SBI.  For any operators already using PCEP as SDN (SDN-like) SBI, a direct PCEP session already exist between all the nodes in the network and the PCE which would be the PCECV SDN scenario in which case the R flag in the open message is set to 0.  

 

We also received positive feedback from Peter Park with telco KT regarding interest in PCEP-LS.

 

We also had feedback from Bin as they have implemented PCEP and have interest in this experimental implementation of this work.

 

I would like to poll the WG again for interest in progressing research and development efforts of this draft as experimental.  

 

As stated in the last WG poll, I would like get feedback from the WG on scope of experiments especially related to scalability concerns and impact to other protocols on the network.

 

Thanks! 

Gyan (on behalf of co-authors)

 

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/110/materials/slides-110-pce-42-pcep-ls-00.pdf

[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dhodylee-pce-pcep-ls/

==

 

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

Gyan Mishra

Network Solutions Architect 

Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <mailto:gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com> 

M 301 502-1347

 

-- 

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

Gyan Mishra

Network Solutions Architect 

Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <mailto:gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com> 

M 301 502-1347

 

-- 

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

Gyan Mishra

Network Solutions Architect 

Email gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com <mailto:gyan.s.mishra@verizon.com> 

M 301 502-1347