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

[Dhruv Dhody]

Hi,

Recent discussion started by Cyril and Stephane on PCE-SR draft reminded me
that this issue is also still open -

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/XLxa7lrHtabXukzvJUWZCCwUROE

or see below...

Thanks!
Dhruv

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:15 PM, Dhruv Dhody  wrote:

> Hi WG,
>
> During the IETF-95, I discussed this open point in PCEP-SR draft with Jeff
> and Jon and also pointed out that the generic TE-Yang is using 5 tuple as a
> key in LSP-state information.
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-03#section-3.4
>
>module: ietf-te
>   +--rw te!
>  +--ro lsps-state
>  |  +--ro lsp*
>  [source destination tunnel-id lsp-id extended-tunnel-id type]
>  | +--ro sourceinet:ip-address
>  | +--ro destination   inet:ip-address
>  | +--ro tunnel-id uint16
>  | +--ro lsp-iduint16
>  | +--ro extended-tunnel-idinet:ip-address
>  | +--ro type  identityref
>
>
> ​​
>
> ​ ​
> ​t
> he RSVP-TE [RFC3209 ] YANG model 
> augmentation of the TE
>model is covered in [I-D.ietf-teas-yang-rsvp 
> ],
>  and other signaling
>
>protocol model(s) (e.g. for Segment-Routing TE) are expected to also
>augment the TE generic model.
>
>
> ​I could see benefit in having this information for SR-TE LSP (and have an
> LSP Identifier TLV) in PCEP messages.
>
>
> What does the authors of the drafts (SR, Yang..) and the WG think about
> it?
>
> Regards,
> Dhruv
>
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Dhruv Dhody 
> wrote:
>
>> 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" > tools.ietf.org>
>> *Cc: *"pce@ietf.org" , "pce-cha...@tools.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).

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

[Dhruv Dhody]

Hi WG,

During the IETF-95, I discussed this open point in PCEP-SR draft with Jeff
and Jon and also pointed out that the generic TE-Yang is using 5 tuple as a
key in LSP-state information.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-03#section-3.4

   module: ietf-te
  +--rw te!
 +--ro lsps-state
 |  +--ro lsp*
 [source destination tunnel-id lsp-id extended-tunnel-id type]
 | +--ro sourceinet:ip-address
 | +--ro destination   inet:ip-address
 | +--ro tunnel-id uint16
 | +--ro lsp-iduint16
 | +--ro extended-tunnel-idinet:ip-address
 | +--ro type  identityref


​​

​ ​
​t
he RSVP-TE [RFC3209 ] YANG model
augmentation of the TE
   model is covered in [I-D.ietf-teas-yang-rsvp
],
and other signaling

   protocol model(s) (e.g. for Segment-Routing TE) are expected to also
   augment the TE generic model.


​I could see benefit in having this information for SR-TE LSP (and have an
LSP Identifier TLV) in PCEP messages.


What does the authors of the drafts (SR, Yang..) and the WG think about it?

Regards,
Dhruv

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Dhruv Dhody 
wrote:

> 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-segment-rout...@ietf.org>, "
> draft-ietf-pce-stateful-...@tools.ietf.org" <
> draft-ietf-pce-stateful-...@tools.ietf.org>
> *Cc: *"pce@ietf.org" , "pce-cha...@tools.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 

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

[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

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

[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

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

[Dhruv Dhody]

Hi Robert,

I agree, can the SR draft authors confirm (and make an update in the next
revision)?

Regards,
Dhruv

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Robert Varga  wrote:

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

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

[Robert Varga]

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

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

[Julien Meuric]

Hi Girish,

Due to the very different levels of maturity between stateful-pce and 
MBB I-Ds, we do not see them merging. MBB I-D was very briefly discussed 
on the list a while ago, we do not know what the plans of the authors are...


Regards,

Julien


Oct. 12, 2015 - girish...@gmail.com:


piggy backing on Dhruv email ...

During PCUpdate for SR LSP -  MBB process mentioned in 
draft-tanaka-pce-stateful-pce-mbb applicable? The MBB draft has 
expired, will it be incorporated in stateful-pce draft?


Thanks,
Girish

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 10:58 PM, 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.

Thanks!

Dhruv

[1]
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce-11#section-7.3.1

[2] http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing/


___
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


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