Hi Mike On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 14:09, Mike Koldychev (mkoldych) <mkold...@cisco.com> wrote:
> Hi Dhruv, > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.i...@gmail.com> > Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 8:27 AM > To: Mike Koldychev (mkoldych) <mkoldych=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> > Cc: Dhruv Dhody <d...@dhruvdhody.com>; pce-chairs <pce-cha...@ietf.org>; > pce@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy...@ietf.org; Cyril > Margaria <cyril.marga...@gmail.com>; Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) < > andrew.st...@nokia.com> > Subject: Re: [Pce] Association Source in > draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-01 > > Hi Mike, > > On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 5:08 PM Mike Koldychev (mkoldych) <mkoldych= > 40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Dhruv, > > > > I don't think it's valid to dismiss race conditions in the protocol > because they are "rare". If they can happen at all means that > implementations need to have extra logic to handle these race conditions. > > > > Doesn't this "extra" logic exist anyway, as you must make sure there is > only one SR policy association with a given set of SR Policy parameters > under normal operations. > > [MK] If the PCC allocates the Association Source/ID, then it's always > going to choose a unique value, so there will never be any collision. So > no, this "extra" logic won't exist if we go with my proposal. > [MC] that's assuming that the PCE always sends 0, and not the previously returned value, at that point why bother using or tracking association ? <cut> > > > BTW, what are your thoughts on the operator-configured association in the > previous email? Not viable? > > [MK] You could set AssocExtID=Color, but I’m not sure what you would set > Source to? Can we just set it to 0.0.0.0/0::0 and be done? Isn't that > also a "special value"? > AssocExtID=Color, endpoint Source should be a valid IP address, 0.0.0.0 looks OK, but I am rusty on that. 0 is reserved, 0xFFFF is all assocation, 1 works as a fixed number not in a reserved range. > > > All of this can be avoided if we just allow Source/ID to be 0 in PCInit > messages. Is that really such a big change? > > > > No, but the WG worked on RFC 8697 to make sure all the associations can be > handled in a common way as much as possible. When deviating from that, IMHO > a higher bar should be met. The WG should ponder if it is met here based on > the scenario described above, that's all. > > [MK] I fully understand, but the value of 0 is reserved in that RFC. Can > each application use 0/0.0.0.0/0::0 for its own purpose? Is that > allowed/forbidden in the RFC? > <cut>
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
