Hi, Xiong Quan, As far as I understand your question, path label shall be allocated by PCE. Then, forward path label shall be added to the bottom (last one) of the label stack and the reverse path label shall be configured to the data plane as incoming label for this LSP
Best regards, Marina From: xiong.q...@zte.com.cn [mailto:xiong.q...@zte.com.cn] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 11:11 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: RE: PCEP extensions for SR-TP Hi Marina, Thanks for your comments! I understand your points now. I agree with you that two labels need to be added to the ERO sub-object list. That is forwarding path label and reverse path label. An And just one label will be inserted into the SR label stack and another one is stored for the bi-directional binding and mapping process. The details are as following: [cid:image003.png@01D43A0C.AAB31A70] So there is one problem left. How to carry the path label? 1, add two sub-TLVs to the LSP object (one for forward path ID and one with R bit for reverse path ID). 2, add the two path labels to the SR-ERO subobjects. 3,add one path label to the SR-ERO subobjects and insterted into label stack together with ERO, add another path to the LSP object sub-TLV for local processing. Any suggestion is appreciated! Best Regards, 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:image004.gif@01D43A0C.AAB31A70] [cid:image005.gif@01D43A0C.AAB31A70] 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：熊泉00091065; 抄送人：pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org> <pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org>>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22日 14:06 主 题 ：RE: PCEP extensions for SR-TP 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> [mailto:xiong.q...@zte.com.cn] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 6:28 AM To: Marina Fizgeer <marina.fizg...@ecitele.com<mailto:marina.fizg...@ecitele.com>> Cc: pce@ietf.org<mailto:pce@ietf.org>; hu.fang...@zte.com.cn<mailto:hu.fang...@zte.com.cn>; zhan.shuangp...@zte.com.cn<mailto:zhan.shuangp...@zte.com.cn>; 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>> 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:image004.gif@01D43A0C.AAB31A70] [cid:image005.gif@01D43A0C.AAB31A70] 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. ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ 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. ___________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
