Hi all,
FWIW
Please could I ask all implementers:
-MUST the PCE terminate the session if its state limit is exceeded, or
MAY it leave it open?
Honestly, I am not 100% sure, although I may be more in favor of : MUST
terminate the session
Rationale:
I am assuming resources in the"pce" process (as in memory, CPU cycles ... )
1) If it is a soft-limit or a PCE transient state, it MAY leave it open.
Leaving it open suggests that the PCC can retry / resend at a later
stage that PCRpt in order to hopefully complete the sync. That would
mean using PCNtf as NACK - maybe not adequate.
2) if it is a hard limit (as it seems to be the case -- note that it is
not stated how a PCC can discover its limits --) leaving it open and the
PCNtf it tells the PCC it hit a limit. The PCC could proceed assuming
that it can report "up to N" and consider the sync done. Deducing this
by repeatedly setting up sessions is IMHO more complex. However, not
sure of the implications of having partial LSPDB sync
3) Re-reading the relevant sections, error cases in the section seem to
explicitly state "MUST close the session". If hitting a hard limit is an
error, it MUST terminate the session (uniform). The question then is
"why is the PCE sending a PCNtf and not a PCErr in that case"? AFAIK
PCNtf seems to be more permissive.
-Has anybody implemented the “exiting resource limit exceeded state”
notification? If so, how are you using it?
No. Currently, we only track the "number of LSPs reported per PCC" but
without actual per PCC limits
If I don’t get any contradictory replies, my default action will be to
say that the session MUST be terminated and to remove the unreferenced
notification-value.
Would you consider changing the PCNtf to PCErr ?
Regards
Ramon
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
