Re: [Pce] Query on Usage of LSP Identifier TLV in SR
Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 15 November 2016 10:41 UTC
Return-Path: <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
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 CFA10129477 for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 02:41:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 B1h4VGunMASc for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 02:41:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it0-x229.google.com (mail-it0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::229]) (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 C8801129A6F for <pce@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 02:41:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it0-x229.google.com with SMTP id q124so162979326itd.1 for <pce@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 02:41:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=VNr50IzHNrDM1D+txkARzk1JiX1J32QgtR2+xCUY/+o=; b=z1BysHNCtFwi9QCHot/bcXXH1Hr3o7/KWOypn1CyXS/KLpKFBLhNlSmoNNNKNdnT4l oMKmMynPw4L0ey4JoOkLkTEmePbopKRLZZ8XBI8EM3szqMb3sEafANV9oczErwcG5jBm 21jn9C7wpvDacdvADcdOoB58SyYsZDemo2W5xti1ofor/CRAg2ZNwmQRmy9Ocf8du0iH m2oyqH/fSpScY75aZYvYuYPZqGv2MpsjbBYzBXH9UjxCqA5n4zc8Hj/2W7Zz/a91faqc 0qwfw7o/49u9kv9dCK0I49SK84eP1fCQArVCLGMoOsT7zNQDIScMM38QRUH5tkS3APZw nF5w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=VNr50IzHNrDM1D+txkARzk1JiX1J32QgtR2+xCUY/+o=; b=UkHcNl9hupe1na/m3cGDAUsVoLSd49DCwaoC3Uz8t5LhypBXsyUPhh6ZgIHRu8r6TQ k0ZJf2qVo7OlwAE80McImvQZ0pMWg9pAgZ5sYiEgQPL0xe0FwUbilsvFL27Hv6dvZW61 ztKbmgMRyRD7VrphNbRA5reaLdK/MOynYOK0pONU/c7rAbOjHpjVUdiPtlPDigO82Ve6 DyJcPl7EnEeRnoXTZBXLg3acnLW2QhgDsaoT/CEMLD1nwpexTsiQJuU7IEMVjO6oSsHb Fay1fJf/1cbWmRJ8G1vuZEboNWW6jZ5Uai5gZCs1Q2j5D9EkBQcnbXIkBto6a3STSjyy fyIA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvfSrWHAhN1P9PVx0Iqy2K+ZYWHRHPMAmtTaAZ5Y+X62+sC8e8vgx0sQ0imI5MeWiOaZn8sojWaL8kmGLQ==
X-Received: by 10.36.61.212 with SMTP id n203mr2068989itn.79.1479206511003; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 02:41:51 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: dhruvdhody@gmail.com
X-Google-Sender-Delegation: dhruvdhody@gmail.com
Received: by 10.50.21.232 with HTTP; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 02:41:50 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAB75xn7H4+H+EgdYuouT-kTy-iOro4m8uXsfA7S89895W+yrOQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8C421A83@BLREML509-MBX.china.huawei.com> <5628C89B.3000404@hq.sk> <99B428A7-A65F-49D2-AF58-95BA1023AAF1@ericsson.com> <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8C505D19@BLREML509-MBX.china.huawei.com> <CAB75xn7H4+H+EgdYuouT-kTy-iOro4m8uXsfA7S89895W+yrOQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 19:41:50 +0900
X-Google-Sender-Auth: lO57ZkyTMA---t7EZimlqSFjwno
Message-ID: <CAB75xn7JNV01Cx4Aq-6kzQtiOE-u1LrG4GCQLBhZ4_3pi2ZKEw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114448bca34b360541549a8b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/rGVwtH6u3eUCMbRyR-gV1Cv2zDU>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Query on Usage of LSP Identifier TLV in SR
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 10:41:56 -0000
Hi, Recent discussion started by Cyril and Stephane on PCE-SR draft reminded me that this issue is also still open - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/XLxa7lrHtabXukzvJUWZCCwUROE or see below... Thanks! Dhruv On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:15 PM, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi WG, > > During the IETF-95, I discussed this open point in PCEP-SR draft with Jeff > and Jon and also pointed out that the generic TE-Yang is using 5 tuple as a > key in LSP-state information. > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-03#section-3.4 > > module: ietf-te > +--rw te! > +--ro lsps-state > | +--ro lsp* > [source destination tunnel-id lsp-id extended-tunnel-id type] > | +--ro source inet:ip-address > | +--ro destination inet:ip-address > | +--ro tunnel-id uint16 > | +--ro lsp-id uint16 > | +--ro extended-tunnel-id inet:ip-address > | +--ro type identityref > > > > > > ....t > he RSVP-TE [RFC3209 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3209>] YANG model augmentation of the TE > model is covered in [I-D.ietf-teas-yang-rsvp <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-03#ref-I-D.ietf-teas-yang-rsvp>], and other signaling > > protocol model(s) (e.g. for Segment-Routing TE) are expected to also > augment the TE generic model. > > > I could see benefit in having this information for SR-TE LSP (and have an > LSP Identifier TLV) in PCEP messages. > > > What does the authors of the drafts (SR, Yang..) and the WG think about > it? > > Regards, > Dhruv > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Jeff, >> >> >> >> [PCEP-SR] did not change the format of the stateful PCE messages (i.e. >> RBNF of PCRpt/PCUpd); and [STATEFUL-PCE] does not have END-POINTS object in >> those messages. >> >> Only PCInitiate message [PCE-INITIATE] has END-POINTS object. >> >> >> >> In the implementations I am aware of, LSP Identifiers TLV is carried in >> PCEP-SR. >> >> One way to find middle ground would be, to make LSP Identifiers TLV as >> optional for PCEP-SR, with a use-case during delegation of a PCC configured >> LSP via PCRpt message. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Dhruv >> >> [PCEP-SR] https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-segment- >> routing-06.txt >> >> [STATEFUL-PCE] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-13 >> >> [PCE-INITIATE] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated- >> lsp-05 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Jeff Tantsura [mailto:jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com] >> *Sent:* 12 February 2016 06:42 >> *To:* Robert Varga; Dhruv Dhody; draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing@ietf.org; >> draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce@tools.ietf.org >> *Cc:* pce@ietf.org; pce-chairs@tools.ietf.org >> >> *Subject:* Re: [Pce] Query on Usage of LSP Identifier TLV in SR >> >> >> >> Hi Robert, >> >> >> >> I disagree with you, I don’t think we need RSVP-TE semantics here, in the >> implementations I'm aware of LSP Identifiers TLV is not used. >> >> END-POINTS object is used to identify the tunnel endpoint addresses. >> >> >> >> I do agree that SR draft should be clear about this and we will update it. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Jeff >> >> >> >> *From: *Robert Varga <nite@hq.sk> >> *Date: *Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 04:29 >> *To: *Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>, "draft-ietf-pce-segment- >> routing@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing@ietf.org>, " >> draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce@ >> tools.ietf.org> >> *Cc: *"pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>, "pce-chairs@tools.ietf.org" < >> pce-chairs@tools.ietf.org> >> *Subject: *Re: [Pce] Query on Usage of LSP Identifier TLV in SR >> >> >> >> On 10/12/2015 07:58 AM, Dhruv Dhody wrote: >> >> Hi Authors, >> >> >> >> In the stateful PCE draft [1], it says – >> >> The LSP Identifiers TLV MUST be included in the LSP object in PCRpt >> >> messages for RSVP-signaled LSPs. >> >> >> >> The SR draft [2] did not mention anything about LSP Identifier TLV. >> >> And in implementations that I am aware of, SR-TE LSP still uses the >> LSP-Identifier TLV. Is that correct? (I personally think so!!) >> >> >> >> If yes, do you think there is a need to update – >> >> - [1] to say all LSPs (and not just RSVP-signaled). >> >> - Or [2] to say that LSP-Identifier TLV are also applicable to SR >> and MUST be included. >> >> >> >> >> The wording in stateful draft is meant to proscribe behavior for RSVP (as >> that is what RFC5440 assumes), while allowing different setup mechanisms ( >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type/) specify >> their own LSP identifier format. >> >> In this spirit I think the SR draft should be updated to explicitly state >> that SR reuses the same identifier format as RSVP (or whatever is >> appropriate). >> >> Bye, >> Robert >> >> >> >> >> >> 本邮件及其附件含有华为公司的保密信息,仅限于发送给上面地址中列出的个人或群组。禁 >> >> 止任何其他人以任何形式使用(包括但不限于全部或部分地泄露、复制、或散发)本邮件中 >> >> 的信息。如果您错收了本邮件,请您立即电话或邮件通知发件人并删除本邮件! >> >> This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from >> HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is >> listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way >> (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, >> or dissemination) by persons other than the intended >> >> recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please >> notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it! >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pce mailing list >> Pce@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >> >> >
- Re: [Pce] Query on Usage of LSP Identifier TLV in… Jeff Tantsura
- [Pce] Query on Usage of LSP Identifier TLV in SR Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [Pce] Query on Usage of LSP Identifier TLV in… Girish Birajdar
- Re: [Pce] Query on Usage of LSP Identifier TLV in… Julien Meuric
- Re: [Pce] Query on Usage of LSP Identifier TLV in… Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [Pce] Query on Usage of LSP Identifier TLV in… Robert Varga
- Re: [Pce] Query on Usage of LSP Identifier TLV in… Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [Pce] Query on Usage of LSP Identifier TLV in… Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [Pce] Query on Usage of LSP Identifier TLV in… Dhruv Dhody
- Re: [Pce] Query on Usage of LSP Identifier TLV in… Dhruv Dhody