Hi Ramon,
Indeed, the I-D used to consider an error for this case, but RFC 5440
gives the pace and 2 codepoints were allocated:
- PCErr are associated to PCEP issues ("when a protocol error condition
is met or when the request is not compliant with the PCEP specification");
- PCNtf are typically used for other cases, including PCE state (e.g.
overload) and policy (e.g. threshold).
Please note also that the current (orphan) text of the I-D allows to use
the PCNtf for "Exiting resource limit exceeded state". I am not saying
the latter should be kept, but considering this option sustains the idea
of having 2 possible messages/behaviors in PCEP.
Thanks for your feedback,
Julien
May. 08, 2017 - [email protected]:
> Hi,
>
> From what I recall, the limit exceeded can refer to the number of
> LSPs, memory, ..etc and the notification was introduced to support the
> same logic as rfc5440 "Overloaded PCE" notification.
>
> To keep that and to support soft/administrative limits, I am in favor
> of MAY terminate the session. If the Peer decides to terminate the
> session, a specific code must be used, otherwise the other peer will
> reconnect and the session will keep flapping.
>
> BR,
> Cyril
>
> On 8 May 2017 at 12:19, Jonathan Hardwick
> <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> Hi PCE WG
>
>
>
> I’ve been tidying up the stateful PCE draft to prepare it for
> publication and I have discovered an inconsistency in how the
> stateful PCE is supposed to handle an overflow of its per-PCC
> resource limit. In section 5.6 it says:
>
>
>
> A PCE implementing a limit on the resources a single PCC can
> occupy,
>
> MUST send a PCNtf message with Notification Type to be allocated by
>
> IANA (Stateful PCE resource limit exceeded) and Notification
> Value to
>
> be allocated by IANA (Entering resource limit exceeded state) in
>
> response to the PCRpt message triggering this condition in the
>
> synchronization phase and MUST terminate the session.
>
>
>
> Whereas in section 6.1 it says:
>
>
>
> A PCE may choose to implement a limit on the resources a single PCC
>
> can occupy. If a PCRpt is received that causes the PCE to exceed
>
> this limit, the PCE MUST notify the PCC using a PCNtf message with
>
> Notification Type to be allocated by IANA (Stateful PCE resource
>
> limit exceeded) and Notification Value to be allocated by IANA
>
> (Entering resource limit exceeded state) and MAY terminate the
>
> session.
>
>
>
> These sections are inconsistent because the first says the PCE
> MUST terminate the session whereas the second says the PCE MAY
> terminate the session.
>
>
>
> Furthermore, in section 8.6, the following notification is defined
> for “exiting resource limit exceeded state”, but this notification
> is not referenced anywhere in the text.
>
>
>
> Notification-Type Meaning
>
> 4 Stateful PCE resource limit exceeded
>
> Notification-value=2: Exiting resource limit exceeded
>
> state
>
>
>
> Please could I ask all implementers:
>
> - MUST the PCE terminate the session if its state limit is
> exceeded, or MAY it leave it open?
>
> - Has anybody implemented the “exiting resource limit
> exceeded state” notification? If so, how are you using it?
>
>
>
> Your swiftest answers would be very much appreciated!
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Many thanks
>
> Jon
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pce mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
