Hi Dhruv,
I agree PCInitiate message including the ASSOCIATION Object may create a new LSP. But it still need to create bi-directional LSP by two messages. In some scenario, like PTN, we need to establish a bi-directional LSP by one message of a PCE request. In my opinion, this is the requirement to create a bi-directional LSP by a PCInitiate message. Thanks, Quan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Pce] A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: "xiong.quan at zte.com.cn" <xiong.quan at zte.com.cn>, "draft-barth-pce-association-bidir at ietf.org" <draft-barth-pce-association-bidir at ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Pce] A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs. From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody at huawei.com> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:21:15 +0000 Accept-language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US Archived-at: < https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/Vx2UV03boBu2HHvP4qWETgxHr90> Cc: "edward.crabbe at gmail.com" <edward.crabbe at gmail.com>, "inaminei at google.com" <inaminei at google.com>, "msiva at cisco.com" <msiva at cisco.com>, "robert.varga at pantheon.tech" <robert.varga at pantheon.tech>, "pce at ietf.org" <pce at ietf.org>, "hu.fangwei at relay.zte.com.cn" <hu.fangwei at relay.zte.com.cn>, "julien.meuric at orange.com" <julien.meuric at orange.com>, "jonathan.hardwick at metaswitch.com" <jonathan.hardwick at metaswitch.com> Delivered-to: pce at ietfa.amsl.com In-reply-to: <of75e385df.cbf7ec89-on4825821e.0028622f-4825821e.0029d...@zte.com.cn> List-archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/> List-help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help> List-id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org> List-post: <mailto:[email protected]> List-subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, < mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe> List-unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, < mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> References: <of75e385df.cbf7ec89-on4825821e.0028622f-4825821e.0029d...@zte.com.cn> Thread-index: AQHTlB0CgKqVuxcwbkmqwLTk/0dyLaOBTApQ Thread-topic: [Pce] A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Quan, As per [1]: A PCE initiating a new LSP, can include the association group information. This is done by including the ASSOCIATION Object in a PCInitiate message. So when a new LSP is created by PCE, you could still indicate the association. The association is not limited to existing LSPs. Hope this helps! Let me know if I understood your question correctly! Regards, Dhruv [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-association-group-04#section-5.2.1 From: xiong.quan at zte.com.cn [mailto:xiong.quan at zte.com.cn] Sent: 23 January 2018 13:07 To: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody at huawei.com>; draft-barth-pce-association-bidir at ietf.org Cc: edward.crabbe at gmail.com; inaminei at google.com; msiva at cisco.com; robert.varga at pantheon.tech; pce at ietf.org; hu.fangwei at relay.zte.com.cn; julien.meuric at orange.com; jonathan.hardwick at metaswitch.com Subject: Re: [Pce] A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs. Hi Dhruv, Thank you for the reply!O(∩_∩)O~ I agree two created PCE-initiated LSPs may be associated by ASSOCIATION object as discussed in draft-barth-pce-association-bidir. But if there is no LSP existed, how to request a bi-directional TE LSP from PCE in PCE initiated operation? Quan Xiong -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Pce] A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: "xiong.quan at zte.com.cn" <xiong.quan at zte.com.cn>, "edward.crabbe at gmail.com" <edward.crabbe at gmail.com>, "inaminei at google.com" <inaminei at google.com>, "msiva at cisco.com" <msiva at cisco.com>, "robert.varga at pantheon.tech" <robert.varga at pantheon.tech> Subject: Re: [Pce] A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs. From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.dhody at huawei.com> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:28:27 +0000 Accept-language: en-GB, en-US Archived-at: < https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/ryZRIHK4zGoqSAsxMFQetTWDjbY> Cc: "hu.fangwei at relay.zte.com.cn" <hu.fangwei at relay.zte.com.cn>, "pce at ietf.org" <pce at ietf.org>, "draft-barth-pce-association-bidir at ietf.org" <draft-barth-pce-association-bidir at ietf.org> Delivered-to: pce at ietfa.amsl.com In-reply-to: <OF60BFF49D.2F7F81DC-ON48258217.0026FFA8-4825821E.000BA102 at zte.com.cn> List-archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/> List-help: <mailto:pce-request at ietf.org?subject=help> List-id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org> List-post: <mailto:pce at ietf.org> List-subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, < mailto:pce-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe> List-unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, < mailto:pce-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> References: <OF60BFF49D.2F7F81DC-ON48258217.0026FFA8-4825821E.000BA102 at zte.com.cn> Thread-index: AQHTk+76gKqVuxcwbkmqwLTk/0dyLaOAy0lA Thread-topic: [Pce] A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Quan, Check out - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-barth-pce-association-bidir/ Authors are in cc, if you need to have further discussion! Thanks! Dhruv From: Pce [mailto:pce-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of xiong.quan at zte.com.cn Sent: 23 January 2018 07:37 To: edward.crabbe at gmail.com; inaminei at google.com; msiva at cisco.com; robert.varga at pantheon.tech Cc: hu.fangwei at relay.zte.com.cn; pce at ietf.org Subject: [Pce] A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs. Hi all, I encountered a problem as following shown.O(∩_∩)O~ As defined in RFC5440,the PCC-initiated LSPs creation uses the B bit in RP object of PCReq message to indicate the direction of the TE LSP. When set, the PCC requests a bi-directional TE LSP and when cleared, the TE LSP is unidirectional. And in stateful PCE, RFC8281 proposed the PCE-initiated LSPs and the PCE could send a PCInitiate message to the PCC to request the creation of an LSP. The PCInitiate message carry the Objects including SRP, LSP ,END-POINTS and ERO. But no B bit in SRP object. How to configure the direction of the TE LSP in PCE-initiated operation? Best Regards, Quan Xiong -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References: [Pce] A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs. From: xiong . quan Prev by Date: Re: [Pce] Adoption Poll for draft-raghu-pce-lsp-control-request Previous by thread: [Pce] A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs. Index(es): Date Thread Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References: Re: [Pce] A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs. From: xiong . quan Prev by Date: Re: [Pce] A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs. Next by Date: [Pce] iPOP 2018 First CFP Previous by thread: Re: [Pce] A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs. Next by thread: [Pce] iPOP 2018 First CFP Index(es): Date Thread Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
