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 <[email protected]> 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 source inet:ip-address > | +--ro destination inet:ip-address > | +--ro tunnel-id uint16 > | +--ro lsp-id uint16 > | +--ro extended-tunnel-id inet:ip-address > | +--ro type identityref > > > > > > ....t > he RSVP-TE [RFC3209 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3209>] YANG model > augmentation of the TE > model is covered in [I-D.ietf-teas-yang-rsvp > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-03#ref-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 <[email protected]> > 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:[email protected]] >> *Sent:* 12 February 2016 06:42 >> *To:* Robert Varga; Dhruv Dhody; [email protected]; >> [email protected] >> *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected] >> >> *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 <[email protected]> >> *Date: *Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 04:29 >> *To: *Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]>, "draft-ietf-pce-segment- >> [email protected]" <[email protected]>, " >> [email protected]" <draft-ietf-pce-stateful-pce@ >> tools.ietf.org> >> *Cc: *"[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" < >> [email protected]> >> *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 >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
