Hi Aaron Thanks for the comment. There are no procedures defined that would allow a PCE to initiate a take-over of an LSP from a PCC. Rather, the PCC must delegate the LSP to an appropriate PCE (if the LSP is initiated by a PCE then it must initially be delegated to that PCE). The cases you mention would be resolved by the PCC making a local decision whether or not to re-delegate the LSP to an alternative PCE.
So, I am not sure that the "orphan" flag would be useful to the PCE, at least not for the purpose that you describe. Best regards Jon -----Original Message----- From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Itskovich Sent: 04 January 2017 20:08 To: pce@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Pce] draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp I suggest to add indication that PCE Initiated LSP is orphan to LSP object in PCReport message. This information will be useful in facilitating takeover of an orphan LSP by redundant PCE server. Option 1) Adding bit to the LSP flags (L-bit "parentless/orphan") that will be set in the LSP object of the PCReport message sent when PCE Initiated LSP becomes orphan as result of connection loss to the PCE server that initiated this LSP or because such PCE server returns LSP delegation to the PCC to initiate transfer of LSP "ownership" to another PCE server. Option 2) Adding bit to the LSP flags (D2-bit ) that is set when such LSP is delegated to any PCE server. In this option PCE receiving report will be able to derive when PCE Initiated LSP is in orphan state when C flag in the report is set and the new D2-bit is not set. This proposal (regardless which option 1 or 2 is used ) alows PCC to propagate "orphan" state for the PCE initiated LSP to all PCE servers. It will help to trigger takeover of a PCE initiated LSP. The existing alternative is to rely on the PCE server to server communication for detection of such events which is prone to errors. For example: - loss of communication between PCE-A and PCE-B may be interpreted as "takeover" trigger which is not necessarily true as PCE-A<->PCC connection may still be up. - In case where PCE-A <-> PCC connection is down and both PCC <-> PCE-B and PCE-A <-> PCE-B connections are up we will need each PCE server to distribute information about connection with it's clients to all peers The suggestion frees PCE server from the need to propagate it's client connection status to all other PCE servers. Let me know what you think Thanks Aaron _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
