Hi Ina, In the interest of time, moved from mic to list...
I'm struggling with the semantics of the Association object is used. In signaling, when I mention an LSP I mention all of the Associations that are relevant. If I mention the LSP again with a different set of Associations, this set replaces the previous set. Now, here you have a different semantic with the R-bit. This means that the set of Associations for an LSP is the sum of all reported Associations, and they only go away when the R-bit is set. I think you have done this in order to allow for multiple PCCs/PCEs reporting Associations. But you have created a state synchronisation problem because the addition (and more importantly the removal) of an Association is not a confirmed operation. Thus, if the PCEP session goes down, we aren't sure whether the other end knows about the Association state we think we sent it. This is OK for adding Associations because we can re-send them. For removal of Associations we are now in a mess and forced to retain removal state until we are sure our peer has heard us. That seems icky. Have I missed something? An alternative is to go to the signaling model and say that Associations *in*PCEP* must be reported by the node that created them and that all Associations created by a node must be reported in the same message. This allows for recovery. Adrian _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
