Hi Olivier, Good summary indeed. I was worried about interop testing when I sent the original email to the list in December 2014.
I just wanted to comment on a couple of things: 1. You are correct that the LSP object which has the D-delegate flag is allowed in the PCReq message as per draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce. I however think it is more appropriate to do the delegation in the subsequent PCRpt message once the LSP path is programmed by PCC following the PCRep message from PCE. This is because it is at that time that the LSP is being synchronized with the PCE LSP database. 2. The PCRpt message does not carry the original constraints of the LSP (Bandwidth, Metric, and LSPA objects). It can carry the operational values of the Bandwidth and Metric objects used by the last computed path in the router. So, even if you have a PCE which reacted to the PCRpt message and computed a new path, it will not get the appropriate constraints included. That is why the PCReq/PCRep sequence before delegating the LSP is needed. Regards, Mustapha. From: EXT olivier.dug...@orange.com [mailto:olivier.dug...@orange.com] Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 12:29 PM To: Aissaoui, Mustapha (Nokia - CA); adr...@olddog.co.uk; 'Dhruv Dhody' Cc: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] Whither Stateless PCE? Hello all, IMHO the discussion must be split into is 2 different subjects: 1/ PCInit message could be seen as an independent message compared to other PCReq/PCRep, PCRpt and PCUp. Indeed, the PCE uses the PCInit message after a request that comes from another interface (e.g. a RestConf API) instead of PCReq that comes from the router itself through PCEP. In fact, when you configure a tunnel on the router, only the path computation part is requested to the PCE. Complements of tunnel configuration still remain in the router configuration. In case of PCInit, all information must be provided to the router. This could be for example the traffic steering. So, IMHO, it is normal that the PCInit message evolves through extensions different from the other PCEP messages, and in particular PCReq, as it is not triggered by the same entity, i.e. an external component instead the PCC router itself. 2/ But, this will not make PCReq message obsolete. Indeed, RFC5440 will continue to be mandatory for stateful both passive and active mode even if it needs clarification in the draft. Let me explain. In passive stateful, a PCReq/PCRep sequence is drawn in Figure 7 of the pce stateful draft prior to the PCRpt message Now, the ambiguity comes from the active stateful mode and figure 8. Why is the PCReq/PCRep sequence not mentioned? Of course the tunnel is delegated in this mode, but, the delegation object has been added as an extension to the PCReq message in the same draft. So, IMHO, at the creation of the tunnel, the draft must precise that a PCReq/PCRep exchange with delegation=1 must be used prior to the PCRpt to be coherent with RFC 5440 and passive stateful mode. The problem occured during our evaluation of commercial products on which we made interoperability tests. Indeed we observed different behaviours that are due to the draft ambiguity and conduct to some interoperability issues. The different cases are as follow: - a/ - PCReq/PCRep exchange to obtain a valid ERO before the PCRpt message - b/ - PCReq message to obtain a valid ERO but with no reaction from the PCE which is not conform to RFC5440 - c/ - PCRpt with empty ERO (looks strange. What is the meaning of an Empty ERO ? a loose path ? no path ? )/PCupd to get a valid path which overlaps with standard RFC5440 PCReq/PCRep. - d/ - PCRpt with empty ERO and no PCUpd leaving the tunnel down. Thus, PCC/PCE that used PCRpt/PCupd messages for active stateful mode are incompatible with PCC/PCE that used standard PCReq/PCrep exchange. We could not mix both behaviours (PCC that use PCReq message with PCE that react to PCRpt with empty ERO and reciprocally). The problem occurs only at the creation of the tunnel. Once created and up the tunnel is reported and updated by means of PCRpt / PCupd messages correctly in all cases. To summarize: PCInit message could leave independently from other messages. PCReq is the basis of PCE and is mandatory in all use cases included the active stateful mode, but this need to be clarify in the pce stateful draft. Regards Olivier Le 07/04/2016 23:22, Aissaoui, Mustapha (Nokia - CA) a écrit : Hi Adrian, I raised in December 2014 the technical issue in draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce that a PCC must be able to convey the original parameters (constraints) of the LSP path (Bandwidth, Metric, and LSPA objects) using a PCReq message to a PCE and subsequently delegate the LSP to PCE using the PCRpt message. Otherwise, when the LSP is delegated to PCE only the operational values of these parameters can be included in the PCRpt message. The latter means that the PCE will update the path without knowing exactly the original parameters. For me, PCReq/PCRep are an integral part of operating an LSP in stateful mode. Here is the link to the archived thread: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=pce&so=-date&q=%22+Path+Computation+Request+in+Active+Stateful+PCE%22 Regards, Mustapha. From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of EXT Adrian Farrel Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 12:48 AM To: 'Dhruv Dhody' Cc: pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Pce] Whither Stateless PCE? I think you are probably right, Dhruv. But referencing the ways in which customers deploy may be a little limiting. To say PCE is widely deployed (even after all these years) may be an exaggeration. Although we do have some clues about what is currently being pushed for deployment. I think you have mainly grasped my point, however. We need to understand which extensions are definitely only needed in one mode or another, and which should be done in all modes (either because they are needed or because we don't know). OTOH, I suppose TLVs are just TLVs. Once you specified the TLV it is not rocket science to include it in a message. In fact, it is probably one line of text to include it and only a short paragraph to describe additional processing in other modes once you have described how it is used in one mode. Where does that leave us? Adrian From: dhruvdh...@gmail.com<mailto:dhruvdh...@gmail.com> [mailto:dhruvdh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Dhruv Dhody Sent: 06 April 2016 23:07 To: Farrel Adrian Cc: pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Pce] Whither Stateless PCE? Hi Adrian, Even in the brave new world of Stateful PCE, PCReq and PCRep messages do play a role in the passive stateful PCE mode. PCReq/PCRep also play a crucial role in the inter-domain and inter-layer context in the new proposal like stateful H-PCE. At the same time mandating that every extension (say SFC) must also be specified in a stateless manner when no customer deploy in such a way, might be overkill. Perhaps we need to look at it case by case! Dhruv On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk<mailto:adr...@olddog.co.uk>> wrote: 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 _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org<mailto:Pce@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org<mailto:Pce@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
