Hi PCE WG, In IETF 121, I presented extension for BSID handling from: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-sidor-pce-lsp-state-reporting-extensions-00.html#name-binding-label-sid-dynamic-f
I also mentioned during that presentation that RFC9604 is describing possibility to specify explicit BSID for PCE initiated LSPs, but it is also saying that PCC must reject complete request if such BSID cannot be allocated on headend. That seems to be a bit misaligned (not violating) with description in SR policy architecture, which is suggesting to just generate alert message (we can consider PCError as "alert"), but we are also rejecting complete request as well: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9256.html#name-bsid-of-an-sr-policy When the specified BSID is not available (optionally is not in the SRLB), an alert message MUST be generated via mechanisms like syslog. In the cases (as described above) where SR Policy does not have a BSID available, the SR Policy MAY dynamically bind a BSID to itself. Dynamically bound BSIDs SHOULD use an available SID outside the SRLB. RFC9604 (PCEP BSID) in reality is more aligned with alternate (not described in main section for BSID, but only as option, which may be supported) behavior described in: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9256.html#name-specified-bsid-only Then we have policy-cp draft, which is actually introducing "specified BSID only" behavior in PCEP: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp#name-specified-bsid-only Which is finally enabled by default anyway (at least for PCE initiated LSPs), so that option has low added value (possible added value is only to report what behavior is enabled by local policy for PCC configured policy). So I was thinking whether it would not be better to drop "specified BSID only" extension from policy-cp draft (as that is useless) and introduce possibility to create policy with explicit BSID even if BSID is not available on headend in "draft-sidor-pce-lsp-state-reporting-extensions" and either keep policy down or allow fallback to dynamic BSID (behavior can be controlled by flag in PCEP or by local policy) to align options with SR policy architecture. That way BSID related extensions will not be spread across multiple drafts and we will not have "useless" specified BSID only extension in PCEP. Any opinions? Thanks, Samuel
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
