Dear PCE, The authors have published updated version that should address comments received on the list
Summary of Changes: - Encoding changes to the TLV - Support for SRv6 Binding Type - Reference to PCECC based binding SID allocation (and appendix text moved to the PCECC I-D) We believe the draft is ready for wg adoption and would like to request the chairs to start the adoption call. Thanks! Cheers, Jeff > From: Pce [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2018 10:19 AM > To: pce@ietf.org > Subject: [Pce] Fwd: PCE-BSID Question to the List > > Dear PCE, > > Following our presentation in Bangkok, > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/103/materials/slides-103-pce-23-binding-segment-00.pdf > > The authors would like to ask the WG the following: > > > (1) Do we link the Binding SID to the PCEP SR capability? Currently we > can assign BSID for RSVP-TE LSP as well. > > [Zhibo]Yes, it is important, I could think of few use cases-> “domain > stitching”,” solving MSD limits” and “interworking b/w MPLS and SRv6 domains” > by PCE > > > (2) Is WG happy with TE-PATH-BINDING TLV format? > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Type | Length | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Binding Type (BT) | Binding Value | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > ~ Binding Value (continued) (variable length) ~ > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > [Zhibo] I prefer the length of BT field is 8 bits, and adding 24 reserved > bits for future features, such as flag or something else. > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Type | Length | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | BT | reserved | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > ~ Binding Value (variable length) ~ > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > This encoding of BSID is similar to BGP > [https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-segment-routing-te-policy-05#section-2.4.2] > that works for both SR-MPLS and SRv6. > When length is 8, then the binding Value is a MPLS label, when length is 20, > the binding value is a SRv6 SID. > > > Figure 2: TE-PATH-BINDING TLV > > (3) Is there a use case for binding value as “index” in SRGB/SRLB? > [Zhibo] I think there is no use case for binding value as “index” in SRLB, > cause BSID may not be a global label. > > > Thanks! > > Cheers, > Jeff
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
