Hi Olivier, Thanks for starting this thread.
As a WG participant... On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 12:05 AM <olivier.dug...@orange.com> wrote: > Dear all, > > According to the remark about implementation we got during the WG call > for adoption, we would start a new thread to discuss this point. > The goal isto prepare the discussion for next IETF meeting and reach a > consensusin order to edit revision 2 of the draft. > > The stitching label principle requires at least a certain number of > modifications in the current PCEP version: > > a) A new PCE Capability to announce the inter-domain behaviour > b) A new PCE Association Group to associate the local paths identifier > to the inter-domain identifier > c) new PCEP Errors to manage the Stitching Label exchange > d) A mechanism to convey the Stitching Label > > If there is no other choice than to reuse existing PCEP Objects by > allocating new code points for modifications a-c,there is several > options for point d, which we have tried to list below: > > d1) Use ERO and RRO in conjunction to new Path Setup code points as > described in version 01 of the draft. It is the simplest > implementation but as mention by Dhruv, each time a new path > enforcement appear, a new PST code point must be allocated. > For example, when Segment Routing v6 will be standardized, we must > allocate a new Stitching label PST code point for SRv6. > d2) Use ERO and ERO in conjunction to a new flag in LSP. Simple as for d1, > but need to use the LSP Extended Flag draft as all LSP flags have > been > already allocated. > d3) Same as d2 but find another place for the flag e.g. SRP or LSPA > Object. > d4) Define a new PCEP sub-Objet TLV within the LSP Object to convey the > stitching label. This is more independent but need extra parsing from > an implementation point of view. > > My preference would for d2 or d3 (in that order). LSP Extended Flag is adopted by the WG and is ready for prime-time use -- let's use it :) Authors of LSP Extended Flag are waiting for the draft blockade to be lifted to post the -00 WG I-D. Thanks! Dhruv > Please, give us your opinion about these different options and don't > hesitate > to propose others. > > Regards > > Olivier on be-half of co-author's > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
