Hi, Xiong Quan,
Thank you for reply.
Some comments:
1. R bit shall be 1 for reverse direction (and not 0)
2. As I understand, we don’t have egress ERO for reverse direction. My
suggestion was to add the second (reverse) path ID to the ingress ERO of LSP.
3. One remark: path ID is not routing object, may be make sense to add
two sub-TLVs to the LSP object (one for forward path ID and one with R bit for
reverse path ID). It means that LSP will have two additional attributes –
forward path ID and reverse path ID
Best regards,
Marina
From: xiong.q...@zte.com.cn [mailto:xiong.q...@zte.com.cn]
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 6:28 AM
To: Marina Fizgeer <marina.fizg...@ecitele.com>
Cc: pce@ietf.org; hu.fang...@zte.com.cn; zhan.shuangp...@zte.com.cn; Michael
Gorokhovsky <michael.gorokhov...@ecitele.com>; Alexander Ferdman
<alexander.ferd...@ecitele.com>; Ron Sdayoor <ron.sday...@ecitele.com>;
Alexander Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com>; Rotem Cohen
<rotem.co...@ecitele.com>
Subject: 答复: PCEP extensions for SR-TP
Hi Marina,
Thanks for your attention and comments! I think you have proposed a good
question.
The "path label " which my draft defined is inserted into ERO list and uniquely
identifies a uni-directional path.
So one label can be added to the Ingress ERO list for the forwarding direction
and
another label with the R bit set to 0 can be added to the egress ERO list for
the reverse direction.
The two path labels can be the same or diffrent and can be binded to indentify
a bi-directional path.
I will update the draft soon and provide more details.
More comments are welcome!
Quan
熊泉 xiongquan
软件工程师 Software Engineer
预研标准部/有线研究院/有线产品经营部 Standard Preresearch Dept./Wireline Product R＆D
Institute/Wireline Product Operation
[cid:image001.gif@01D439F6.92439E30]
[cid:image002.gif@01D439F6.92439E30]
武汉市东湖高新技术开发区华师园路6号中兴通讯
2/F, R&D Building, ZTE Corporation, Huashi Park Road 6th,
Hi-tech Donghu District, Wuhan, P.R.China, 430022
T: +86 27 13871144372
E: xiong.q...@zte.com.cn<mailto:xiong.q...@zte.com.cn>
www.zte.com.cn<http://www.zte.com.cn/>
原始邮件
发件人：MarinaFizgeer
<marina.fizg...@ecitele.com<mailto:marina.fizg...@ecitele.com>>
收件人：pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org> <pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org>>
抄送人：熊泉00091065;胡方伟10075772;詹双平10034653;Michael Gorokhovsky
<michael.gorokhov...@ecitele.com<mailto:michael.gorokhov...@ecitele.com>>Alexander
Ferdman
<alexander.ferd...@ecitele.com<mailto:alexander.ferd...@ecitele.com>>Ron
Sdayoor <ron.sday...@ecitele.com<mailto:ron.sday...@ecitele.com>>Alexander
Vainshtein
<alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com<mailto:alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com>>Rotem
Cohen <rotem.co...@ecitele.com<mailto:rotem.co...@ecitele.com>>
日 期 ：2018年08月20日 20:31
主 题 ：PCEP extensions for SR-TP
Dear authors of draft-xiong-pce-pcep-extension-sr-tp,
My colleagues and I are interested in some clarifications:
According to this draft, Path label can be added as the last label in the LSP
SR-ERO list.
Each endpoint element needs 2 labels – one for forward path ID and one for
incoming path ID
Our question is – if 2 path labels can be added to the LSP SR-ERO list (one
with “R” bit) per LSP?
Path label with “R” bit set will not be added to outgoing label stack, but will
be configured in the data plane as an incoming label.
Using this approach one SR-ERO list will contain outgoing Path label as well as
incoming Path label
PCE path example:
Best regards,
Marina
Email: marina.fizg...@gmail.com<mailto:marina.fizg...@gmail.com>
marina.fizg...@ecitele.com<mailto:marina.fizg...@ecitele.com>
___________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information
which is
CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received
this
transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then
delete the original
and all copies thereof.
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information
which is
CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received
this
transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then
delete the original
and all copies thereof.
___________________________________________________________________________
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Marina,
Thanks for your attention and comments! I think you have proposed a good
question.
The "path label " which my draft defined is inserted into ERO list and uniquely
identifies a uni-directional path.
So one label can be added to the Ingress ERO list for the forwarding direction
and
another label with the R bit set to 0 can be added to the egress ERO list for
the reverse direction.
The two path labels can be the same or diffrent and can be binded to indentify
a bi-directional path.
I will update the draft soon and provide more details.
More comments are welcome!
Quan
熊泉 xiongquan
软件工程师 Software Engineer
预研标准部/有线研究院/有线产品经营部 Standard Preresearch Dept./Wireline Product R＆D
Institute/Wireline Product Operation
[cid:9ae3e214c17d49ed935d87c674ba3ee2] [cid:24242e5637af428891c4db731e7765ad]
武汉市东湖高新技术开发区华师园路6号中兴通讯
2/F, R&D Building, ZTE Corporation, Huashi Park Road 6th,
Hi-tech Donghu District, Wuhan, P.R.China, 430022
T: +86 27 13871144372
E: xiong.q...@zte.com.cn
www.zte.com.cn<http://www.zte.com.cn/>
原始邮件
发件人：MarinaFizgeer <marina.fizg...@ecitele.com>
收件人：pce@ietf.org <pce@ietf.org>
抄送人：熊泉00091065;胡方伟10075772;詹双平10034653;Michael Gorokhovsky
<michael.gorokhov...@ecitele.com>Alexander Ferdman
<alexander.ferd...@ecitele.com>Ron Sdayoor <ron.sday...@ecitele.com>Alexander
Vainshtein <alexander.vainsht...@ecitele.com>Rotem Cohen
<rotem.co...@ecitele.com>
日 期 ：2018年08月20日 20:31
主 题 ：PCEP extensions for SR-TP
Dear authors of draft-xiong-pce-pcep-extension-sr-tp,
My colleagues and I are interested in some clarifications:
According to this draft, Path label can be added as the last label in the LSP
SR-ERO list.
Each endpoint element needs 2 labels – one for forward path ID and one for
incoming path ID
Our question is – if 2 path labels can be added to the LSP SR-ERO list (one
with “R” bit) per LSP?
Path label with “R” bit set will not be added to outgoing label stack, but will
be configured in the data plane as an incoming label.
Using this approach one SR-ERO list will contain outgoing Path label as well as
incoming Path label
PCE path example:
Best regards,
Marina
Email: marina.fizg...@gmail.com<mailto:marina.fizg...@gmail.com>
marina.fizg...@ecitele.com<mailto:marina.fizg...@ecitele.com>
___________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information
which is
CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received
this
transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then
delete the original
and all copies thereof.
___________________________________________________________________________
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
