Hi, Many Thanks Adrian - Authors, could you please address the points listed below ?
Thanks. JP. On Mar 30, 2012, at 12:11 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Please accept this comment as an individual comment like all the rest. > > I have some reservations about adopting this document as a WG draft, but will > not register to stand in its way. > > I understand the motive for this work and, indeed, it fills a hole in the > protocol spec. > > I do hope that the authors are building it for shipping equipment and > deployment. If not, would they please consider whether it should be > experimental? > > Here are some comments based on a very light review. I should probably read > the document properly some day. > > I am concerned that this document changes the definition and intent contained > in RFC 5440. In my opinion the authors of 5440, and the WG at the time, wen > to some lengths to tie the content of objects in PCEP to the same definitions > found in RFCs 3209, 3473 and 3477. At the same time, definitions of > subobjects for path definition, should also pay attention to RFCs 4874 and > 4920. The intention is to not define more subobjects than needed and to keep > registries aligned. > > It is also worth noting how 4920 handles 2 and 4 octet AS numbers and that > there is overlap in the definition of AS number subobjects with > draft-zhang-pce-hierarchy-extensions-01 > > In this light and on careful reading, the IANA section is somewhat broken and > confused about what should be in the registry it is creating. > > But I am also unsure why a new IRO type is needed. Surely the domain sequence > that is used in the computation is also the domain sequence for the path that > the LSP will take. This feeds on the points below. > > The algorithm in 3.4: > - assumes only area IDs and AS numbers > - assumes that a PCE knows at least one PCE responsible for each of > its neighboring domains > > I would like the authors to take care that the identity of a boundary node > does not uniquely identify a next-hop domain (even if it may be successfully > used for domain routing given the knowledge of the next domain, next boundary > node, or egress node) and the text should not imply that it does. This is > hidden at the end of 3.4 some time after the boundary node/link discussion. > > Shouldn't you allow "loose" hops in the domain path? (i.e. gaps between > domains). > > Can I also mix other concepts with the domain path? What about a consistent > lambda, or a core node that needs to be on the path? > > In 3.5.7 I don't see that the domain sequence is necessarily an alternative > to the PCE sequence. There are cases where even with a domain sequence, a PCE > sequence is important. > > In 3.5.7 you have: > All PCE must be aware of all other PCEs in all domain for PCE- > Sequence. > This is false. Although it is true that a PCE in one domain must be able to > route to the IP address of a PCE in a neighboring domain. > > In 3.5.7 you have: > There maybe multiple PCE in a domain, the selection of PCE should > not be made at the PCC/PCE(1). This decision is made only at the > neighboring PCE which is aware of state of PCEs via notification > messages > There are four points here: > 1. These are unsubstantiated assertions rather than reasons. > 2. All neighboring PCEs are sending each other notification messages? > 3. PCE choice may be based on capabilities, not just being up > 4. In HPCE, it is quite reasonable for the parent to select the children > > Section 5 will need loads of work because the domain sequence (even for > inclusion, not reporting) provides information valuable to an attacker. > > I am sure the management considerations can be added within the WG process. > > Thanks, > Adrian > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of JP > Vasseur > Sent: 29 March 2012 17:30 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Pce] Adopting draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-02 as a new PCE > WG > > Dear all, > > We had a pretty strong support for adopting > draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-02 a PCE Working Group during our PCE WG > meeting but > as usual we'd like to confirm on the mailing list. > > Could you please let us know if you are in favor/opposed to adopting > draft-dhody-pce-pcep-domain-sequence-02 as a PCE WG Document ? > > Thanks. > > JP and Julien.
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
