Hi, Thanks Samuel for sharing pointers!
I also dont think that these drafts are competing! See this text in https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-08.html#section-2 A PCEP speaker that advertises both color capability and SR Policy > Association capability ([I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp > <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-08.html#I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp> > ]) SHOULD NOT send Color TLV encoded in the LSP object for SR Paths. The > Color TLV is ignored if it shows up in the LSP object of a message which > carries an ASSOCIATION object of type SR Policy Association ([ > I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp > <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-08.html#I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp> > ]). The color encoded in the SR Policy Association takes precedence in > such a scenario. Thanks! Dhruv On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 8:33 PM Samuel Sidor (ssidor) <ssidor= 40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > Hi Dmytro, > > > > In “draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp”, you can see Implementation > section, which is mentioning 2 vendors, which implemented support and there > were interoperability tests done on EANTC 2024 with implementations between > multiple vendors (look for “Colored Path Computing and Signaling” in test > results). > > > > For “draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color”, I believe that it was originally > introduced only for enabling usage of color for RSVP-TE LPSs and support > for SR was allowed only recently (~3 months ago): > > > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-04&url2=draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-05&difftype=--html > > So most likely it is not adopted by that many vendors, but authors of that > draft can share more details. > > > > Regards, > > Samuel > > > > *From:* Dmytro Shypovalov <d...@routingcraft.net> > *Sent:* Friday, January 31, 2025 1:59 PM > *To:* pce@ietf.org > *Subject:* [Pce] SR policy color in PCEP practical implementations? > > > > Dear PCE experts, > > > > Apologies if this is off topic for this mailer list as my question is not > about the standard per se but about vendor implementations. > > > > Currently there are 2 competing drafts to advertise SR policy color: > > > > 1) https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-color-08 > > 2) > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-20 > > > > Do you know if any of the vendors implemented either of those on the PCC > side? And more broadly, which one of these drafts will the industry go > ahead with? > > > > As a PCE developer, I want to ensure best compatibility with all vendors. > So far the implementations I tested don't understand either of those > TLVs/objects, and the association object leads to some errors/crashes/hangs. > > > > > > Regards, > > Dmytro > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list -- pce@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to pce-le...@ietf.org
