Thanks Adrian! This makes sense! Hope the authors of GMPLS draft could take this up.
Regards, Dhruv On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> wrote: > So, I think Quan is asking how to use a PCInitiate message to cause the > creation of a "co-routed" bidirectional LSP that is achieved in the > signaling plane by a single Path/Resv exchange. > > > > That is *G*MPLS function, but an answer would still be useful. > > > > Now, on a PCReq you need the B-bit to tell the PCE to compute a > bidirectional path. But what you should be looking at is the PCRep message. > That is, how does the PCE indicate that a bidirectional path has been > returned? And the answer is two points: > > > > 1. Since the requester asked for a bidirectional path, and since a path > has been computed, the PCC has every right to assume that the path can be > used for a bidirectional LSP. > > > > 2. The RP Object is present on the PCRep and also contains thee B-flag. > > > > Now, note that the PCInitiate most closely follows the PCRep. That is, it > flows from PCE to PCC and indicates the path of the LSP to be set up. > > > > Now, the PCInitiate carries the SRP Object, not the RP Object (just like > PCUpd message). > > > > There is a flags field in the SRP Object, but the only bit defined is in > 8281 for LSP removal. > > > > So, to expand on Quan's question: how do we Update an LSP that was set up > with the B-flag in the RP object, and how do we create an bidirectional LSP > using PCInitiate message? > > > > It is fine if the answer is "This is GMPLS function that possibly should > not have been in 5440, and we need to look at some additional work for > GMPLS extensions for 8231 and 8281." > > > > draft-ietf-pce-pcep-stateful-pce-gmpls is a starting point and should, > perhaps, define a B flag for the SRP on the PCUpd that would then also be > available automatically on the PCInitiate. > > > > Yours ramblingly, > > Adrian > > > > > > > > > > *From:* Pce [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of * > [email protected] > *Sent:* 24 January 2018 09:21 > *To:* [email protected] > *Cc:* [email protected]; draft-barth-pce-association- > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > *Subject:* [Pce] 答复: Re: A question about RFC8281 PCE-initiated LSPs. > > > > 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. > [email protected]> > List-archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/> > List-help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help > <[email protected]?subject=help>> > List-id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org> > List-post: <mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>> > List-subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, < > mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe > <[email protected]?subject=subscribe>> > List-unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, < > mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe > <[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>> > References: <OF75E385DF.CBF7EC89-ON4825821E.0028622F-4825821E. > [email protected]> > 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 <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 <pce-request> at ietf.org?subject=help> > List-id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org> > List-post: <mailto:pce <pce> at ietf.org> > List-subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, < > mailto:pce-request <pce-request> at ietf.org?subject=subscribe> > List-unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, < > mailto:pce-request <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 <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 > >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
