Hello all,
IMHO the discussion must be split into is 2 different subjects:
1/ PCInit message could be seen as an independent message compared to
other PCReq/PCRep, PCRpt and PCUp. Indeed, the PCE uses the PCInit
message after a request that comes from another interface (e.g. a
RestConf API) instead of PCReq that comes from the router itself through
PCEP. In fact, when you configure a tunnel on the router, only the path
computation part is requested to the PCE. Complements of tunnel
configuration still remain in the router configuration. In case of
PCInit, all information must be provided to the router. This could be
for example the traffic steering. So, IMHO, it is normal that the PCInit
message evolves through extensions different from the other PCEP
messages, and in particular PCReq, as it is not triggered by the same
entity, i.e. an external component instead the PCC router itself.
2/ But, this will not make PCReq message obsolete. Indeed, RFC5440 will
continue to be mandatory for stateful both passive and active mode even
if it needs clarification in the draft. Let me explain. In passive
stateful, a PCReq/PCRep sequence is drawn in Figure 7 of the pce
stateful draft prior to the PCRpt message Now, the ambiguity comes from
the active stateful mode and figure 8. Why is the PCReq/PCRep sequence
not mentioned? Of course the tunnel is delegated in this mode, but, the
delegation object has been added as an extension to the PCReq message in
the same draft. So, IMHO, at the creation of the tunnel, the draft must
precise that a PCReq/PCRep exchange with delegation=1 must be used prior
to the PCRpt to be coherent with RFC 5440 and passive stateful mode.
The problem occured during our evaluation of commercial products on
which we made interoperability tests. Indeed we observed different
behaviours that are due to the draft ambiguity and conduct to some
interoperability issues. The different cases are as follow:
- a/ - PCReq/PCRep exchange to obtain a valid ERO before the PCRpt message
- b/ - PCReq message to obtain a valid ERO but with no reaction from
the PCE which is not conform to RFC5440
- c/ - PCRpt with empty ERO (looks strange. What is the meaning of an
Empty ERO ? a loose path ? no path ? )/PCupd to get a valid path which
overlaps with standard RFC5440 PCReq/PCRep.
- d/ - PCRpt with empty ERO and no PCUpd leaving the tunnel down.
Thus, PCC/PCE that used PCRpt/PCupd messages for active stateful mode
are incompatible with PCC/PCE that used standard PCReq/PCrep exchange.
We could not mix both behaviours (PCC that use PCReq message with PCE
that react to PCRpt with empty ERO and reciprocally). The problem occurs
only at the creation of the tunnel. Once created and up the tunnel is
reported and updated by means of PCRpt / PCupd messages correctly in all
cases.
To summarize: PCInit message could leave independently from other
messages. PCReq is the basis of PCE and is mandatory in all use cases
included the active stateful mode, but this need to be clarify in the
pce stateful draft.
Regards
Olivier
Le 07/04/2016 23:22, Aissaoui, Mustapha (Nokia - CA) a écrit :
Hi Adrian,
I raised in December 2014 the technical issue in
draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce that a PCC must be able to convey the
original parameters (constraints) of the LSP path (Bandwidth, Metric,
and LSPA objects) using a PCReq message to a PCE and subsequently
delegate the LSP to PCE using the PCRpt message. Otherwise, when the
LSP is delegated to PCE only the operational values of these
parameters can be included in the PCRpt message. The latter means that
the PCE will update the path without knowing exactly the original
parameters.
For me, PCReq/PCRep are an integral part of operating an LSP in
stateful mode.
Here is the link to the archived thread:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=pce&so=-date&q=%22+Path+Computation+Request+in+Active+Stateful+PCE%22
Regards,
Mustapha.
*From:*Pce [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *EXT Adrian Farrel
*Sent:* Thursday, April 07, 2016 12:48 AM
*To:* 'Dhruv Dhody'
*Cc:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [Pce] Whither Stateless PCE?
I think you are probably right, Dhruv.
But referencing the ways in which customers deploy may be a little
limiting.
To say PCE is widely deployed (even after all these years) may be an
exaggeration.
Although we do have some clues about what is currently being pushed
for deployment.
I think you have mainly grasped my point, however. We need to
understand which extensions are definitely only needed in one mode or
another, and which should be done in all modes (either because they
are needed or because we don't know).
OTOH, I suppose TLVs are just TLVs. Once you specified the TLV it is
not rocket science to include it in a message. In fact, it is probably
one line of text to include it and only a short paragraph to describe
additional processing in other modes once you have described how it is
used in one mode.
Where does that leave us?
Adrian
*From:*[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Dhruv Dhody
*Sent:* 06 April 2016 23:07
*To:* Farrel Adrian
*Cc:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [Pce] Whither Stateless PCE?
Hi Adrian,
Even in the brave new world of Stateful PCE, PCReq and PCRep messages
do play a role in the passive stateful PCE mode. PCReq/PCRep also play
a crucial role in the inter-domain and inter-layer context in the new
proposal like stateful H-PCE.
At the same time mandating that every extension (say SFC) must also be
specified in a stateless manner when no customer deploy in such a way,
might be overkill.
Perhaps we need to look at it case by case!
Dhruv
On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Adrian Farrel <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Once upon a time, in a working group far, far away, PCE was basically
stateless.
PCE acted in response to questions asked by PCCs.
These days, everyone is excited by stateful PCEs and there is a lot of
initiation (of LSPs or of control of LSPs).
In the jabber room during today's meeting Ravi noted that not a lot of
the new
drafts (maybe none of them) talk about PCReq messages. This raises the
question
in our minds as to whether stateless PCE is obsolete.
If (and only if) this mode of PCE usage has gone out of fashion, we
*might*
consider cleaning up the protocol and architecture so that we don't
need to make
protocol extensions to PCReq and PCRep messages when we make extensions to
PCInit messages.
Thoughts?
Adrian
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
