IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Pce] Whither Stateless PCE?

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Wed, 06 April 2016 19:01 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 5BE6412D7CC for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 12:01:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] 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 sONjx1c_L4Qh for <pce@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 12:01:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8670612D8DD for <pce@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 12:00:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u36J0pIM021152 for <pce@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:00:51 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (dhcp-b176.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.177.118]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u36J0kfp021105 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <pce@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 20:00:50 +0100
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: pce@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 20:00:44 +0100
Message-ID: <091b01d19036$a22f2f10$e68d8d30$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdGQNhyPAKWwZo0PTL2c2Fgzw0+kjw==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.0.0.1202-22244.001
X-TM-AS-Result: No--5.051-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--5.051-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: odToTIJzbMmGTM8qnwC9JMdDwwczffCuU+eLLzZDpzusafcFLFlU1J8N uGexHVnGZTZzaFl5ufbL8w6bqV3BEixp73Cw0QGX7spMO3HwKCAtRE4f+LSYTZwC/3285PC0OXf Z9OHyzWaW7B9aJpMK4SB57LUjqcLQc4AxKqEGoHqeAiCmPx4NwLTrdaH1ZWqCmBlD3TjdXl76C0 ePs7A07Y6HM5rqDwqtzzjwCQZTAjCPI+RU5VKSbG8skwj3HbQqDR/06bheN5w8I4MkqaCF5g==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/tr9tDbUvkT0Hd4nOZKweQ8GmAJ4>
Subject: [Pce] Whither Stateless PCE?
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
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, 06 Apr 2016 19:01:10 -0000

Once upon a time, in a working group far, far away, PCE was basically stateless.
PCE acted in response to questions asked by PCCs.

These days, everyone is excited by stateful PCEs and there is a lot of
initiation (of LSPs or of control of LSPs).

In the jabber room during today's meeting Ravi noted that not a lot of the new
drafts (maybe none of them) talk about PCReq messages. This raises the question
in our minds as to whether stateless PCE is obsolete.

If (and only if) this mode of PCE usage has gone out of fashion, we *might*
consider cleaning up the protocol and architecture so that we don't need to make
protocol extensions to PCReq and PCRep messages when we make extensions to
PCInit messages. 

Thoughts?

Adrian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email