IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pce] Whither Stateless PCE?

Robert Varga <nite@hq.sk> Mon, 27 June 2016 12:45 UTC

Return-Path: <nite@hq.sk>
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 C7A3F12D08F for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jun 2016 05:45:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.426
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.426 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=hq.sk
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 gbkFLntTmXgW for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jun 2016 05:45:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hq.sk (hq.sk [81.89.59.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F0C512B04E for <pce@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jun 2016 05:45:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.137.1.13] (46.229.239.158.host.vnet.sk [46.229.239.158]) by mail.hq.sk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CE271241798; Mon, 27 Jun 2016 14:45:00 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hq.sk; s=mail; t=1467031500; bh=26lmzSwSDKWrGU0zo+/lSc2KcYIbldcWpgX1xO+MKro=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=M6pgJEmoFayy5VArFV8qKrhMleLCQTgEEX3wveOrbljA0XfcFyM/BF1dkE8Zj50vN kAqcfoyFprpd4TRLuSCC6pIcRHtCaxasr1C6D9jyjS2MHBuYXlFf8LhPqLm//FrXja BNAthyIMroXTlzJIFNoaRNUzU6vuBMvOPm6OAzEo=
To: stephane.litkowski@orange.com, DUGEON Olivier IMT/OLN <olivier.dugeon@orange.com>, "Aissaoui, Mustapha (Nokia - CA)" <mustapha.aissaoui@nokia.com>, "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, 'Dhruv Dhody' <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <091b01d19036$a22f2f10$e68d8d30$@olddog.co.uk> <CAB75xn7UKxZwq0zWXRopPyrtGfaYpP31jzMbGF3SsUB9CEQLuA@mail.gmail.com> <0a5a01d19088$9ddea060$d99be120$@olddog.co.uk> <4A79394211F1AF4EB57D998426C9340DD48CD06A@US70UWXCHMBA01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> <28817_1460132965_5707DC65_28817_16160_1_5707DC64.1050707@orange.com> <18401_1460135058_5707E492_18401_5293_1_a6a87aba-1ff7-4b66-9da7-5712aca4c97d@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Robert Varga <nite@hq.sk>
Message-ID: <d17605c4-c0b1-cc2f-45b4-e43f1844dfc4@hq.sk>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 14:44:51 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <18401_1460135058_5707E492_18401_5293_1_a6a87aba-1ff7-4b66-9da7-5712aca4c97d@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="mlxGJ6OwLRcOcUgdaREdX7q4Wr89vVo91"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/ssAcPx_PBjuflLLa4hKww4xcATM>
Cc: "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Whither Stateless PCE?
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: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 12:45:05 -0000

On 04/08/2016 07:04 PM, stephane.litkowski@orange.com wrote:
> Hi,

Hello,

> I fully agree that stateful PCE draft needs to be more clear about how a
> PCC retrieves a path when the delegation starts and the LSP has just
> been configured (does it need to compute locally first and then
> delegate, or do PCReq as Olivier proposed …).

RFC5440's spirit is that the PCC is the ultimate owner of LSP state. I
do believe both behaviors are valid and should be a matter of local PCC
policy rather than protocol specification.

> I want to add my voice to what Olivier said about the inconsistent
> behaviors we see today in implementations leading to lack of
> interoperability.

Does this statement refer to multiple PCE implementations or multiple
PCC implementations?

Thanks,
Robert

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email