Re: [Pce] Query on Usage of LSP Identifier TLV in SR

2016-02-11 Thread Dhruv Dhody 
Hi Jeff,

[PCEP-SR] did not change the format of the stateful PCE messages (i.e. RBNF of 
PCRpt/PCUpd); and [STATEFUL-PCE] does not have END-POINTS object in those 
messages.
Only PCInitiate message [PCE-INITIATE] has END-POINTS object.

In the implementations I am aware of, LSP Identifiers TLV is carried in PCEP-SR.
One way to find middle ground would be, to make LSP Identifiers TLV as optional 
for PCEP-SR, with a use-case during delegation of a PCC configured LSP via 
PCRpt message.

Regards,
Dhruv
[PCEP-SR] https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-06.txt
[STATEFUL-PCE] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-13
[PCE-INITIATE] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-pce-initiated-lsp-05



From: Jeff Tantsura [mailto:jeff.tants...@ericsson.com]
Sent: 12 February 2016 06:42
To: Robert Varga; Dhruv Dhody; draft-ietf-pce-segment-rout...@ietf.org; 
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-...@tools.ietf.org
Cc: pce@ietf.org; pce-cha...@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Pce] Query on Usage of LSP Identifier TLV in SR

Hi Robert,

I disagree with you, I don’t think we need RSVP-TE semantics here, in the 
implementations I'm aware of LSP Identifiers TLV is not used.
END-POINTS object is used to identify the tunnel endpoint addresses.

I do agree that SR draft should be clear about this and we will update it.

Cheers,
Jeff

From: Robert Varga >
Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 04:29
To: Dhruv Dhody >, 
"draft-ietf-pce-segment-rout...@ietf.org"
 
>,
 
"draft-ietf-pce-stateful-...@tools.ietf.org"
 
>
Cc: "pce@ietf.org" >, 
"pce-cha...@tools.ietf.org" 
>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Query on Usage of LSP Identifier TLV in SR

On 10/12/2015 07:58 AM, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
Hi Authors,

In the stateful PCE draft [1], it says –
The LSP Identifiers TLV MUST be included in the LSP object in PCRpt
messages for RSVP-signaled LSPs.

The SR draft [2] did not mention anything about LSP Identifier TLV.
And in implementations that I am aware of, SR-TE LSP still uses the 
LSP-Identifier TLV. Is that correct? (I personally think so!!)

If yes, do you think there is a need to update –

-  [1] to say all LSPs (and not just RSVP-signaled).

-  Or [2] to say that LSP-Identifier TLV are also applicable to SR and MUST 
be included.


The wording in stateful draft is meant to proscribe behavior for RSVP (as that 
is what RFC5440 assumes), while allowing different setup mechanisms 
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type/) specify their 
own LSP identifier format.

In this spirit I think the SR draft should be updated to explicitly state that 
SR reuses the same identifier format as RSVP (or whatever is appropriate).

Bye,
Robert


本邮件及其附件含有华为公司的保密信息，仅限于发送给上面地址中列出的个人或群组。禁
止任何其他人以任何形式使用（包括但不限于全部或部分地泄露、复制、或散发）本邮件中
的信息。如果您错收了本邮件，请您立即电话或邮件通知发件人并删除本邮件！
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, 
which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. 
Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not 
limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by 
persons other than the intended
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify 
the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it!

___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

[Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-04.txt

2016-02-11 Thread internet-drafts 

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element of the IETF.

Title   : PCEP Extension for WSON Routing and Wavelength 
Assignment
Authors : Young Lee
  Ramon Casellas
Filename: draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-04.txt
Pages   : 25
Date: 2016-02-11

Abstract:
   This document provides the Path Computation Element communication
   Protocol (PCEP) extensions for the support of Routing and Wavelength
   Assignment (RWA) in Wavelength Switched Optical Networks (WSON).
   Lightpath provisioning in WSONs requires a routing and wavelength
   assignment (RWA) process.  From a path computation perspective,
   wavelength assignment is the process of determining which wavelength
   can be used on each hop of a path and forms an additional routing
   constraint to optical light path computation.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-04

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-wson-rwa-ext-04


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Re: [Pce] Query on Usage of LSP Identifier TLV in SR

2016-02-11 Thread Jeff Tantsura 
Hi Robert,

I disagree with you, I don’t think we need RSVP-TE semantics here, in the 
implementations I'm aware of LSP Identifiers TLV is not used.
END-POINTS object is used to identify the tunnel endpoint addresses.

I do agree that SR draft should be clear about this and we will update it.

Cheers,
Jeff

From: Robert Varga >
Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 04:29
To: Dhruv Dhody >, 
"draft-ietf-pce-segment-rout...@ietf.org"
 
>,
 
"draft-ietf-pce-stateful-...@tools.ietf.org"
 
>
Cc: "pce@ietf.org" >, 
"pce-cha...@tools.ietf.org" 
>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Query on Usage of LSP Identifier TLV in SR

On 10/12/2015 07:58 AM, Dhruv Dhody wrote:
Hi Authors,

In the stateful PCE draft [1], it says –
The LSP Identifiers TLV MUST be included in the LSP object in PCRpt
messages for RSVP-signaled LSPs.

The SR draft [2] did not mention anything about LSP Identifier TLV.
And in implementations that I am aware of, SR-TE LSP still uses the 
LSP-Identifier TLV. Is that correct? (I personally think so!!)

If yes, do you think there is a need to update –

-  [1] to say all LSPs (and not just RSVP-signaled).

-  Or [2] to say that LSP-Identifier TLV are also applicable to SR and MUST 
be included.


The wording in stateful draft is meant to proscribe behavior for RSVP (as that 
is what RFC5440 assumes), while allowing different setup mechanisms 
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-lsp-setup-type/) specify their 
own LSP identifier format.

In this spirit I think the SR draft should be updated to explicitly state that 
SR reuses the same identifier format as RSVP (or whatever is appropriate).

Bye,
Robert

___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce