[Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-09.txt

2019-04-23 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 WG of the IETF.

Title   : PCEP Extensions for MPLS-TE LSP Automatic Bandwidth 
Adjustment with Stateful PCE
Authors : Dhruv Dhody
  Udayasree Palle
  Ravi Singh
  Rakesh Gandhi
  Luyuan Fang
Filename: draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-09.txt
Pages   : 31
Date: 2019-04-23

Abstract:
   The Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) provides
   mechanisms for Path Computation Elements (PCEs) to perform path
   computations in response to Path Computation Clients (PCCs) requests.
   The Stateful PCE extensions allow stateful control of Multi-Protocol
   Label Switching (MPLS) Traffic Engineering Label Switched Paths (TE
   LSPs) using PCEP.

   The automatic bandwidth feature allows automatic and dynamic
   adjustment of the TE LSP bandwidth reservation based on the volume of
   traffic flowing through the LSP.  This document describes PCEP
   extensions for automatic bandwidth adjustment when employing an
   Active Stateful PCE for both PCE-Initiated and PCC-Initiated LSPs.



The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-09
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-09

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-09


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] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-auto-bandwidth-08

2019-04-23 Thread Rakesh Gandhi
 Thanks Adrian for the detailed review and suggestions.  Please see replies
inline with ...



On 2019-04-17, 11:03 PM, "Adrian Farrel"  wrote:



Hello authors,



Sorry about the clunk as this draft shifted between shepherd.



I have some fairly minor review comments (below). Could you please
address

these in a new revision.



Meanwhile, I will start on the shepherd write-up ready to move ahead as

quickly as possible.



Thanks,

Adrian

---



Odd leading space on 4th line of Abstract



 Fixed.

---



Abstract para 2

s/Automatic bandwidth/Automatic bandwidth adjustment/ ??





 Added – “The automatic bandwidth feature”

---



2.3

Down-Adjustment-Interval

s/lesser/less/



 Fixed.

---



I found the definition of Maximum Average Bandwidth and the definitions

of Up/Down-Adjustment-Interval to be circular. Unless, perhaps, the

definition of Adjustment-Interval is missing.



That is, Maximum Average Bandwidth is defined as

  max {Bandwidth-Sample(i)} for each sample interval i in the

Adjustment-Internal

But Up/Down-Adjustment-Interval both appear to be dependent on Maximum

Average Bandwidth.



 Removed the Adjustment-Interval from the Max Average Bandwidth
definition. That should remove the circular dependency.

---



3.

s/the PCC, the LSP that/the PCC, which LSPs/



 Fixed.

---



4.1

OLD

   Auto-Bandwidth feature allows automatic and dynamic adjustment of the

   reserved bandwidth of an LSP over time, i.e. without network operator

   intervention to accommodate the varying traffic demand of the LSP.

NEW

   The Auto-Bandwidth feature allows automatic and dynamic adjustment of

   the reserved bandwidth of an LSP over time (i.e., without network

   operator intervention) to accommodate the varying traffic demand of

   the LSP.

END



 Fixed.

---



4.1 has...



   The bandwidth

   adjustment uses the make-before-break (MBB) signaling method so that

   there is no disruption to the traffic flow carried by the LSP.



I think this should be...



   Bandwidth adjustment must not cause disruption to the traffic flow

   carried by the LSP.  One way to achieve this is to use the make-

   before-break (MBB) signaling method.



This is the softest way I can think of saying what you don't want to

say which is that RSVP-TE signaling supports in-place bandwidth

adjustmnt simply by sending a new Path message. (Noting that failure to

make the adjustment can be seen either in a non-fatal PathErr or in a

Resv with unchanged bandwidth.)



 Fixed.



Similarly in 4.3 maybe...



OLD

   It should be noted that any bandwidth change requires re-signaling of

   an LSP in a make-before-break fashion, which can further trigger

   preemption of lower priority LSPs in the network.

NEW

   It should be noted that any bandwidth change requires re-signaling of

   an LSP, which can further trigger preemption of lower priority LSPs

   in the network.

END



 Fixed.

---



4.2 has...



   When the Auto-Bandwidth feature is enabled, the measured traffic rate

   is periodically sampled at each Sample-Interval (which can be

   configured by an operator and the default value as 5 minutes) by the

   PCC which is the head-end node of the LSP.



As you know, in the PCE architecture, the PCC is not necessarily the

head-end LSR. You need either to restrict this function to only

operating when the PCC *is* the head-end LSR, or you need to re-word

slightly.  Either works for me.



 Updated. “by the PCC, when the PCC is the head-end node of the LSP.”



---



I wonder whether you intend that Section 4 (in particular Section 4.2)

is normative in this document. It could be that you are just describing

the procedures in a general way - in which case a one line statement of

that would address my concern. Or it could be that you intend to define

how auto-bandwidth adjustment must be implemented.



That is, the document claims to describe changes to PCEP to support

auto-bandwidth, but this section appears to be describing how auto-

bandwidth must be implemented, and I don't think I agree that the

description is completely wise.



 Added – “This section describes the Auto-Bandwidth feature in a
general way.”





For example...



   The

   PCC, in-charge of calculating the bandwidth to be adjusted, will

   adjust the bandwidth of the LSP to the highest traffic rate sample

   (MaxAvgBw) amongst the set of bandwidth samples collected over the

   adjustment-interval period (in the Up or Down direction).



...means that a single spike in a potentially very small window over

a potentially v

Re: [Pce] WG LC for draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity and draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection

2019-04-23 Thread julien.meuric
Hi all,

Only one week left to review: no reason to wait for the last minute, do
not be shy to share your comments and/or implementation status.

Thanks,

Adrian, Dhruv & Julien


On 09/04/2019 16:05, julien.meu...@orange.com wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This message initiates a bulk WG Last Call for both
> draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-06 and
> draft-ietf-pce-stateful-path-protection-04. Please review these
> documents and share your feedback using the PCE mailing list.
>
> If you have an implementation of any of them, you may let the chairs
> know privately.
>
> This double LC will last for 3 weeks and will end on Tuesday April 30.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adrian, 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