I have a related question: how do you define the "PCC address", PCEP session address , one router id?
For the association source race condition, the race condition will result in a "Conflicting SRPAG TLV" from a PCInitiate/PCUpd, the PCE can use the correct SRPAG. On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 16:16, Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mike, > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 9:34 PM Mike Koldychev (mkoldych) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Dhruv, > > > > > > > > Perhaps we can avoid this by letting PCE send PCInitiate message with > Association Source set to some reserved value, like 0. This can mean that > the PCE is basically requesting the PCC to allocate an Association Source > and to “own” that Association. We already do this with the Association ID. > PCE sets the ID to 0 in PCInitiate and PCC chooses an Association ID and > reports it back. > > > > > > The comment was applicable for association-id as well as > association-source! The use of 0 as association ID is being introduced > by your draft and not part of the base RFC 8697 and that triggered the > original email. Julien and I were uncomfortable with that and wanted > to understand what is new here for SR policy association that requires > a new procedure and cant be handled by RFC 8697. > > Thanks, > Dhruv > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Mike. > > > > > > > > From: Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> > > Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 10:43 AM > > To: Mike Koldychev (mkoldych) <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > pce-chairs <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: Association Source in > draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-01 > > > > > > > > Hi Mike, > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 7:51 PM Mike Koldychev (mkoldych) < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Dhruv, > > > > > > > > Thanks for bringing this up. > > > > > > > > By setting ASSO_SOURCE = PCC_ADDRESS, we guarantee that: > > > > all 3 parties: PCC, PCE1 and PCE2 agree on the same source, AND > > they agree without talking to each other. > > > > > > > > In your proposal below, if we set ASSO_SOURCE = NMS_ADDRESS, it seems > that condition 1 may be fulfilled, but it requires exchange of PCRupt/PCUpd > messages between the 3 entities, which violates condition 2. Please correct > me if I misunderstood something. In the picture that you drew, you say that > “Policy Endpoint=X” and “Association Source=X”, are you suggesting to use > the policy endpoint as the ASSO_SOURCE? That would satisfy both conditions, > but I’m not sure if you intended that? > > > > > > > > > > > > No, I did not! > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe condition 2 is important to satisfy, because otherwise there > could be race conditions where the 3 parties have different ASSOC_SOURCE > for the same policy. Consider what happens when all 3 parties try to create > the same policy at the same time. > > > > > > > > > > > > The SR-Policy association is "dynamic" in nature, and we need to go by > the association parameters we receive from the PCEP peer. Condition 2 of > talking to each other is the very nature of a dynamic association! > > > > > > > > If the race condition is the issue to solve, we can use the SR-Policy > parameters (color, endpoint, source). And make sure there is only one > SR-Policy-association-group with a given set of SR-Policy parameters (and > generate an error otherwise). The other PCE would learn about the > association and can use it subsequently! > > > > > > > > I’m open to any proposal, but IMO we should respect the above two > requirements. > > > > > > > > > > > > I feel the requirement 2 is not compatible with a dynamic association. > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > Dhruv > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Mike. > > > > > > > > From: Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> > > Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 1:59 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected]; pce-chairs <[email protected]> > > Subject: Association Source in > draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-01 > > > > > > > > Hi Authors, > > > > In > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-01#section-4.2, > you state - > > > > The Association Source MUST be set to the PCC's address. This > > applies for both PCC-initiated and PCE-initiated candidate paths. > > The reasoning for this is that if different PCEs could set their own > > Association Source, then the candidate paths instantiated by > > different PCEs would by definition be in different PCEP Associations, > > which contradicts our requirement that the SR Policy is represented > > by an Association. > > > > > > > > > > The Association ID MUST be chosen by the PCC when the SR policy is > > allocated. In PCRpt messages from the PCC, the Association ID MUST > > be set to the unique value that was allocated by the PCC at the time > > of policy creation. In PCInit messages from the PCE, the Association > > ID MUST be set to the reserved value 0, which indicates that the PCE > > is asking the PCC to choose an ID value. The PCE MUST NOT send the > > Extended Association ID TLV in the PCInit messages. > > > > > > But the base RFC 8697 > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8697.html#section-6.1.3 gave quite a > bit of leeway while setting the association source. > > > > Consider 2 PCEs - PCE1 & PCE2, I am assuming if candidate paths are > created via two different PCEs both will be aware of SR Policy identifiers > (color, end-point, etc). When PCE1 initiates CP1, it could use the > association source as Virtual-IP or NMS (instead of PCE1). The PCE2 will > learn about the association and the corresponding SR policy parameters via > the PCRpt message which is sent to both PCEs. So when the PCE2 initiates > CP2, it could use the same association! > > > > This was the very reason to include the flexibility in setting the > association source in RFC 8697. > > > > Julien and I discussed this and we feel you are trying to solve the > issue of sharing an association ID between several PCEs by using a new mean > than the one in RFC 8697. If you have other reasons then please state them, > otherwise, RFC 8697 should take precedence. > > > > Thanks! > > Dhruv & Julien > > > > PS. I quickly drew a figure if that helps (see attached)! > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 8:42 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > > This draft is a work item of the Path Computation Element WG of the IETF. > > > > Title : PCEP extension to support Segment Routing > Policy Candidate Paths > > Authors : Mike Koldychev > > Siva Sivabalan > > Colby Barth > > Shuping Peng > > Hooman Bidgoli > > Filename : draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-01.txt > > Pages : 20 > > Date : 2020-10-27 > > > > Abstract: > > This document introduces a mechanism to specify a Segment Routing > > (SR) policy, as a collection of SR candidate paths. An SR policy is > > identified by <headend, color, end-point> tuple. An SR policy can > > contain one or more candidate paths where each candidate path is > > identified in PCEP via an PLSP-ID. This document proposes extension > > to PCEP to support association among candidate paths of a given SR > > policy. The mechanism proposed in this document is applicable to > > both MPLS and IPv6 data planes of SR. > > > > > > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp/ > > > > There are also htmlized versions available at: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-01 > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-01 > > > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > > > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-segment-routing-policy-cp-01 > > > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > submission > > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pce mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce > > _______________________________________________ > Pce mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
