IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pce] A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs.

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com> Tue, 23 January 2018 03:28 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.dhody@huawei.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 49FC71241F5; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:28:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.229
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.229 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 nVoSp-GLzIWX; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:28:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (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 E13041205D3; Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:28:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from LHREML712-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id B1674C066C08A; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:28:37 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from BLREML701-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.20.4.170) by LHREML712-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.361.1; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:28:38 +0000
Received: from BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.9.219]) by blreml701-cah.china.huawei.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 08:58:27 +0530
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody@huawei.com>
To: "xiong.quan@zte.com.cn" <xiong.quan@zte.com.cn>, "edward.crabbe@gmail.com" <edward.crabbe@gmail.com>, "inaminei@google.com" <inaminei@google.com>, "msiva@cisco.com" <msiva@cisco.com>, "robert.varga@pantheon.tech" <robert.varga@pantheon.tech>
CC: "hu.fangwei@relay.zte.com.cn" <hu.fangwei@relay.zte.com.cn>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>, "draft-barth-pce-association-bidir@ietf.org" <draft-barth-pce-association-bidir@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Pce] A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs.
Thread-Index: AQHTk+76gKqVuxcwbkmqwLTk/0dyLaOAy0lA
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:28:27 +0000
Message-ID: <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8D60DF2A@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <OF60BFF49D.2F7F81DC-ON48258217.0026FFA8-4825821E.000BA102@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <OF60BFF49D.2F7F81DC-ON48258217.0026FFA8-4825821E.000BA102@zte.com.cn>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.18.149.39]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8D60DF2ABLREML503MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/ryZRIHK4zGoqSAsxMFQetTWDjbY>
Subject: Re: [Pce] A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs.
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 23 Jan 2018 03:28:43 -0000

Hi Quan,

Check out -  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-barth-pce-association-bidir/
Authors are in cc, if you need to have further discussion!

Thanks!
Dhruv

From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of xiong.quan@zte.com.cn
Sent: 23 January 2018 07:37
To: edward.crabbe@gmail.com; inaminei@google.com; msiva@cisco.com; robert.varga@pantheon.tech
Cc: hu.fangwei@relay.zte.com.cn; pce@ietf.org
Subject: [Pce] A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs.


Hi all,

I encountered a problem as following shown.O(∩_∩)O~

As defined in RFC5440,the PCC-initiated LSPs creation uses the B bit in RP object of PCReq message to indicate the direction of the TE LSP.
When set, the PCC requests a bi-directional TE LSP and when cleared, the TE LSP is unidirectional.

And in stateful PCE, RFC8281 proposed the PCE-initiated LSPs and the PCE could send a PCInitiate message to the PCC to request the creation of an LSP.
The PCInitiate message carry the Objects including SRP, LSP ,END-POINTS and ERO. But no B bit in SRP object.

How to configure the direction of the TE LSP in PCE-initiated operation?

Best Regards,

Quan Xiong

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email