Hi Siva I believe I was missing the signaling aspect for the PCE to build the contiguous end to end LSP and that requires BSID to be signaled over RSVP-TE which is although agnostic to data plane BSID component binding the candidate path to the forwarding plane, is a requirement for end to end control plane signaling for the single LSP end to end path instantiation.
The BSID signaling concept is somewhat analogous concept to LDP tunneling over RSVP-TE tunnel stitching for an end to end LSP instantiation. Thank you Siva for the clarification. Gyan On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 7:33 PM Siva Sivabalan <msiva...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Gyan, > > This ID is all about signaling BSID for RSVP-TE tunnels and SR policies > via PCEP. > > Please do not confuse signaling aspects with how BSID is used. > > There is no change required in the ID. > > Thanks, > Siva > > > On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 7:25 PM Gyan Mishra <hayabusa...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> All >> >> After further review with Siva the use case is for connecting SR islands >> over RSVP-TE core. >> >> So this is for stitching SR-TE on the edge islands binding SID to core >> RSVP-TE tunnel. >> >> One major gap of RSVP-TE is the VRF / VPN coloring capability that in >> order to achieve per VRF coloring mapping of VRF to a discrete TE tunnel >> requires a separate loopback and static routes to egress PE so it does not >> scale. So for as many RSVP mapped tunnels that exist you need that many >> loopbacks and static routes for the next hop rewrite to the RSVP tunnel >> next hop. >> >> So this Major gap is filled with SR VRF and app flow coloring capability >> that with SR-TE Policy BSID bound to candidate path can provide the >> scalability per VRF coloring. >> >> So at the edges you may have many 100s of colored RSVP tunnels but as the >> core does not scale you can not provide a 1-1 mapping of SR-TE tunnel to >> RSVP tunnel. So you would have many to 1 mappings of SR-TE tunnels to >> single or aggregate. >> >> So in my mind to only way the BSID would come into play is if you could >> do a 1-1 mapping of SR-TE tunnel to RSVP tunnel. Technically that is not >> possible. >> >> For PCE to compute end to end path in this scenario does RSVP-TE require >> the BSID for the stitching even if a many SR-TE colors to single RSVP-TE >> tunnel mapping. I would not think so. >> >> If we think that for PCE to build the end to end path even for the end to >> end path in this scenario requires BSID binding to the RSVP-TE single path >> to make contiguous end to end then I agree technically we do need to make >> this inclusive of RSVP-TE. >> >> I think we need to clear this up and if this use case is really not >> feasible then we should remove any mention of BSID use with RSVP-TE tunnel. >> >> Kind Regards >> >> Gyan >> >> On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 3:05 PM Siva Sivabalan <msiva...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Gyan, >>> >>> BSID can be allocated for RSVP-TE as well, and yes, there are use-cases >>> for that. The proposed PCEP extension is equally applicable to both SR-TE >>> and RSVP-TE. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Siva >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 1:40 PM Gyan Mishra <hayabusa...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I support WG LC advancement of this draft for publication. >>>> >>>> I see there are a lot of comments related to a mix of verbiage related >>>> to MPLS label binding and Binding label SID confusion. >>>> >>>> Few comments. >>>> >>>> The draft title states “carrying binding label/sid in PCE based >>>> networks” >>>> >>>> In the abstract it states it is possible to associate a BSID with a >>>> RSVP signaled path. >>>> >>>> I don’t recall any RSVP extension to support concept of BSID usage on >>>> an active Candidate Path option ERO. Can you refer me to the RFC that >>>> states how BSID is used with RSVP TE. >>>> >>>> For more clarity with this draft can we replace >>>> >>>> s/TE/s/SR as TE nomenclature refers to RSVP-TE and does add confusion >>>> where SR is SR. When mentioned traffic engineered path please spell out or >>>> say SR path for clarity. >>>> >>>> Also the “TE-PATH-BINDING TLV” can we change to “SR-PATH-BINDING TLV”. >>>> >>>> The word “binding” is very confusing as it’s used interchangeably with >>>> label binding and binding SID. >>>> >>>> So I am thinking a more appropriate name for the TLV would be >>>> “SR-TE-BSID TLV”. Makes it clear and concise the TLV is for SR-TE. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards >>>> >>>> Gyan >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 9:45 PM Chengli (Cheng Li) <c...@huawei.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks again for your help! >>>>> >>>>> Cheng >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) [mailto:andrew.st...@nokia.com] >>>>> >>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 2:42 AM >>>>> To: Chengli (Cheng Li) <c...@huawei.com>; julien.meu...@orange.com; >>>>> pce@ietf.org >>>>> Cc: draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-...@ietf.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for >>>>> draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07 (and Code Point Allocation) >>>>> >>>>> Hi Cheng, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for clarifying the text in the document. Diff content looks >>>>> good to me, much clearer. Consider my comments resolved. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks! >>>>> Andrew >>>>> >>>>> On 2021-03-25, 10:49 PM, "Pce on behalf of Chengli (Cheng Li)" < >>>>> pce-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of c...@huawei.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Andrew, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for your comments, please see my reply inline. >>>>> >>>>> Also, the diff is attached. >>>>> >>>>> Respect, >>>>> Cheng >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) [mailto: >>>>> andrew.st...@nokia.com] >>>>> Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2021 4:21 AM >>>>> To: julien.meu...@orange.com; pce@ietf.org >>>>> Cc: draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-...@ietf.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for >>>>> draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07 (and Code Point Allocation) >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> Overall Support WGLC. It's an important document in the world of >>>>> SRTE, and the document goes to good lengths to describe the various >>>>> scenarios and combinations. >>>>> >>>>> Only one question I have for the authors and WG, for any further >>>>> clarification on the following text (section 4): >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The absence of TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in PCUpd message >>>>> means that the PCE does not specify a binding value in which >>>>> case the >>>>> binding value allocation is governed by the PCC's local policy. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I find the "governed by PCC local policy" a bit too vague and >>>>> could lead to implementation interop differences. Assuming a PCInitiated >>>>> LSP that been established with a BSID: If the PCE wants to withdraw the >>>>> binding SID , I interpret the document as the PCE would send a PCUpdate >>>>> without the TLV, but the behaviour is now up to PCC as per that text. if >>>>> the PCC local policy/implementation is to do nothing, how can the PCE >>>>> explicitly force-remove the BSID with a PCUpdate? In a similar manner, If >>>>> the PCE does not want to change the value but PCC local policy is to treat >>>>> missing TLV as remove, then PCE should always send the TLV in every >>>>> PCUpdate (which I'm okay with) which is not stated, otherwise the local >>>>> policy/implementation may interpret it as a removal compared to an >>>>> implementation which may interpret it as being okay to not send the TLV on >>>>> every PCUpdate since there was "no change". >>>>> >>>>> In summary: might need a bit of a wording to further detail "PCE >>>>> wishes to withdraw" case. >>>>> >>>>> [Cheng] You are correct, there was some issues with multiple >>>>> TE-PATH-BINDING TLV. This has been updated. See the diff. >>>>> >>>>> The above text has been updated to - >>>>> >>>>> The absence of TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in PCUpd message means that >>>>> the >>>>> PCE does not specify a binding value in which case any previous >>>>> allocated binding values are withdraw. >>>>> >>>>> Further, the PCC's local policy aspect has been seperated out as - >>>>> >>>>> In the absence of any instruction from the PCE, the PCC's local >>>>> policy dictates how the binding allocations are made for a >>>>> given LSP. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks! >>>>> Andrew >>>>> >>>>> On 2021-03-18, 7:09 AM, "Pce on behalf of julien.meu...@orange.com" >>>>> <pce-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of julien.meu...@orange.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> This message initiates a 2-week PCE WG Last Call for >>>>> draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07. Please review and share >>>>> your >>>>> feedback, whatever it is, using the PCE mailing list. This >>>>> WGLC will end >>>>> on Thursday April 1st (no kidding). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Moreover, we have received a request from the authors for a >>>>> code point >>>>> allocation to support interoperability testing. >>>>> >>>>> RFC 7120 requires to meet the following criteria to proceed: >>>>> >>>>> b. The format, semantics, processing, and other rules related >>>>> to >>>>> handling the protocol entities defined by the code points >>>>> (henceforth called "specifications") must be adequately >>>>> described >>>>> in an Internet-Draft. >>>>> c. The specifications of these code points must be stable; >>>>> i.e., if >>>>> there is a change, implementations based on the earlier and >>>>> later >>>>> specifications must be seamlessly interoperable. >>>>> >>>>> If anyone believes that the draft does not meet these >>>>> criteria, or >>>>> believes that early allocation is not appropriate for any other >>>>> reason, please send an email to the PCE mailing list >>>>> explaining why. If >>>>> the chairs hear no objections by Thursday, March 25th, we will >>>>> kick off >>>>> the "early" allocation request. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Dhruv & Julien >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> <http://www.verizon.com/> >>>> >>>> *Gyan Mishra* >>>> >>>> *Network Solutions A**rchitect * >>>> >>>> *Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com <gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com>* >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *M 301 502-1347* >>>> >>>> -- >> >> <http://www.verizon.com/> >> >> *Gyan Mishra* >> >> *Network Solutions A**rchitect * >> >> *Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com <gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com>* >> >> >> >> *M 301 502-1347* >> >> -- <http://www.verizon.com/> *Gyan Mishra* *Network Solutions A**rchitect * *Email gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com <gyan.s.mis...@verizon.com>* *M 301 502-1347*
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
