Hi, I think the main point is what does the session reset bring here ? IMO nothing in that case, your session will constantly bounce until the someone reduce the number of states sent by a particular PCC which will create even more load on the PCE. This is an event that cannot be corrected by the session reset. Logging the Notification is a better approach that would allow the operator to be informed and trigger a fix.
So I do not think that "MUST terminate" is a good way to go. Brgds, Stephane -----Original Message----- From: Pce [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Julien Meuric Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 12:21 To: Dhruv Dhody Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Pce] Stateful PCE: inconsistency in "resource limit" text Hi Dhruv, At this stage, it seems a bit late to introduce this change into the document. However, keeping only "MAY" would allow implementations to behave the way you suggest. Do we consider your feedback as supporting "MAY"? Thanks, Julien May. 09, 2017 - [email protected]: > > Hi Jon, WG, > > > > I feel this was done to differentiate two cases - > > > > (1) The resource limit happened during state synchronization > (section 5.6) - with MUST close session > > (2) The resource limit happened during normal state report - with > MAY close session > > > > We could make this explicit and differentiate the two scenarios? > > > > Regards, > > Dhruv > > > > > > > > *From:*Pce [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan > Hardwick > *Sent:* 08 May 2017 21:49 > > > > 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] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
