+1 On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 10:06 AM Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Gyan, > > As a WG member... > > IMHO PCE I-D should not go into the data-plane handling of BSID, that is > SPRING/MPLS/6MAN perview. > > Thanks! > Dhruv > > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 7:21 PM Gyan Mishra <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Mike >> >> Is the usage for BSID only for control plane signaling as I described it. >> >> What other use cases exist and maybe we should add to the draft. >> >> Thanks >> >> Gyan >> >> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 4:50 AM Mike Koldychev (mkoldych) < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>> >>> I think that BSID is a concept that applies equally well to RSVP-TE and >>> SR-TE. There are many use-cases for RSVP tunnels having a BSID and we >>> definitely DO NOT want to limit it to just SR-TE. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Mike. >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Pce <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of * Gyan Mishra >>> *Sent:* Sunday, March 28, 2021 7:53 PM >>> *To:* Siva Sivabalan <[email protected]> >>> *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected]; Stone, >>> Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) <[email protected]> >>> *Subject:* Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for >>> draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07 (and Code Point Allocation) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Siva >>> >>> >>> >>> I believe I was missing the signaling aspect for the PCE to build the >>> contiguous end to end LSP and that requires BSID to be signaled over >>> RSVP-TE which is although agnostic to data plane BSID component binding the >>> candidate path to the forwarding plane, is a requirement for end to end >>> control plane signaling for the single LSP end to end path instantiation. >>> >>> >>> >>> The BSID signaling concept is somewhat analogous concept to LDP >>> tunneling over RSVP-TE tunnel stitching for an end to end LSP instantiation. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you Siva for the clarification. >>> >>> >>> >>> Gyan >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 7:33 PM Siva Sivabalan <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Gyan, >>> >>> >>> >>> This ID is all about signaling BSID for RSVP-TE tunnels and SR policies >>> via PCEP. >>> >>> >>> >>> Please do not confuse signaling aspects with how BSID is used. >>> >>> >>> >>> There is no change required in the ID. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Siva >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 7:25 PM Gyan Mishra <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> All >>> >>> >>> >>> After further review with Siva the use case is for connecting SR islands >>> over RSVP-TE core. >>> >>> >>> >>> So this is for stitching SR-TE on the edge islands binding SID to core >>> RSVP-TE tunnel. >>> >>> >>> >>> One major gap of RSVP-TE is the VRF / VPN coloring capability that in >>> order to achieve per VRF coloring mapping of VRF to a discrete TE tunnel >>> requires a separate loopback and static routes to egress PE so it does not >>> scale. So for as many RSVP mapped tunnels that exist you need that many >>> loopbacks and static routes for the next hop rewrite to the RSVP tunnel >>> next hop. >>> >>> >>> >>> So this Major gap is filled with SR VRF and app flow coloring capability >>> that with SR-TE Policy BSID bound to candidate path can provide the >>> scalability per VRF coloring. >>> >>> >>> >>> So at the edges you may have many 100s of colored RSVP tunnels but as >>> the core does not scale you can not provide a 1-1 mapping of SR-TE tunnel >>> to RSVP tunnel. So you would have many to 1 mappings of SR-TE tunnels to >>> single or aggregate. >>> >>> >>> >>> So in my mind to only way the BSID would come into play is if you could >>> do a 1-1 mapping of SR-TE tunnel to RSVP tunnel. Technically that is not >>> possible. >>> >>> >>> >>> For PCE to compute end to end path in this scenario does RSVP-TE require >>> the BSID for the stitching even if a many SR-TE colors to single RSVP-TE >>> tunnel mapping. I would not think so. >>> >>> >>> >>> If we think that for PCE to build the end to end path even for the end >>> to end path in this scenario requires BSID binding to the RSVP-TE single >>> path to make contiguous end to end then I agree technically we do need to >>> make this inclusive of RSVP-TE. >>> >>> >>> >>> I think we need to clear this up and if this use case is really not >>> feasible then we should remove any mention of BSID use with RSVP-TE tunnel. >>> >>> >>> >>> Kind Regards >>> >>> >>> >>> Gyan >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 3:05 PM Siva Sivabalan <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Gyan, >>> >>> >>> >>> BSID can be allocated for RSVP-TE as well, and yes, there are use-cases >>> for that. The proposed PCEP extension is equally applicable to both SR-TE >>> and RSVP-TE. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Siva >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 1:40 PM Gyan Mishra <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I support WG LC advancement of this draft for publication. >>> >>> >>> >>> I see there are a lot of comments related to a mix of verbiage related >>> to MPLS label binding and Binding label SID confusion. >>> >>> >>> >>> Few comments. >>> >>> >>> >>> The draft title states “carrying binding label/sid in PCE based networks” >>> >>> >>> >>> In the abstract it states it is possible to associate a BSID with a RSVP >>> signaled path. >>> >>> >>> >>> I don’t recall any RSVP extension to support concept of BSID usage on an >>> active Candidate Path option ERO. Can you refer me to the RFC that states >>> how BSID is used with RSVP TE. >>> >>> >>> >>> For more clarity with this draft can we replace >>> >>> >>> >>> s/TE/s/SR as TE nomenclature refers to RSVP-TE and does add confusion >>> where SR is SR. When mentioned traffic engineered path please spell out or >>> say SR path for clarity. >>> >>> >>> >>> Also the “TE-PATH-BINDING TLV” can we change to “SR-PATH-BINDING TLV”. >>> >>> >>> >>> The word “binding” is very confusing as it’s used interchangeably with >>> label binding and binding SID. >>> >>> >>> >>> So I am thinking a more appropriate name for the TLV would be >>> “SR-TE-BSID TLV”. Makes it clear and concise the TLV is for SR-TE. >>> >>> >>> >>> Kind Regards >>> >>> >>> >>> Gyan >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 9:45 PM Chengli (Cheng Li) <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks again for your help! >>> >>> Cheng >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 2:42 AM >>> To: Chengli (Cheng Li) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; >>> [email protected] >>> Cc: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07 >>> (and Code Point Allocation) >>> >>> Hi Cheng, >>> >>> Thanks for clarifying the text in the document. Diff content looks good >>> to me, much clearer. Consider my comments resolved. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> Andrew >>> >>> On 2021-03-25, 10:49 PM, "Pce on behalf of Chengli (Cheng Li)" < >>> [email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Andrew, >>> >>> Thanks for your comments, please see my reply inline. >>> >>> Also, the diff is attached. >>> >>> Respect, >>> Cheng >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Stone, Andrew (Nokia - CA/Ottawa) [mailto: >>> [email protected]] >>> Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2021 4:21 AM >>> To: [email protected]; [email protected] >>> Cc: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Last Call for >>> draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07 (and Code Point Allocation) >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Overall Support WGLC. It's an important document in the world of >>> SRTE, and the document goes to good lengths to describe the various >>> scenarios and combinations. >>> >>> Only one question I have for the authors and WG, for any further >>> clarification on the following text (section 4): >>> >>> >>> The absence of TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in PCUpd message >>> means that the PCE does not specify a binding value in which case >>> the >>> binding value allocation is governed by the PCC's local policy. >>> >>> >>> I find the "governed by PCC local policy" a bit too vague and could >>> lead to implementation interop differences. Assuming a PCInitiated LSP that >>> been established with a BSID: If the PCE wants to withdraw the binding SID >>> , I interpret the document as the PCE would send a PCUpdate without the >>> TLV, but the behaviour is now up to PCC as per that text. if the PCC local >>> policy/implementation is to do nothing, how can the PCE explicitly >>> force-remove the BSID with a PCUpdate? In a similar manner, If the PCE does >>> not want to change the value but PCC local policy is to treat missing TLV >>> as remove, then PCE should always send the TLV in every PCUpdate (which I'm >>> okay with) which is not stated, otherwise the local policy/implementation >>> may interpret it as a removal compared to an implementation which may >>> interpret it as being okay to not send the TLV on every PCUpdate since >>> there was "no change". >>> >>> In summary: might need a bit of a wording to further detail "PCE >>> wishes to withdraw" case. >>> >>> [Cheng] You are correct, there was some issues with multiple >>> TE-PATH-BINDING TLV. This has been updated. See the diff. >>> >>> The above text has been updated to - >>> >>> The absence of TE-PATH-BINDING TLV in PCUpd message means that the >>> PCE does not specify a binding value in which case any previous >>> allocated binding values are withdraw. >>> >>> Further, the PCC's local policy aspect has been seperated out as - >>> >>> In the absence of any instruction from the PCE, the PCC's local >>> policy dictates how the binding allocations are made for a given >>> LSP. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> >>> Thanks! >>> Andrew >>> >>> On 2021-03-18, 7:09 AM, "Pce on behalf of [email protected]" >>> <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> This message initiates a 2-week PCE WG Last Call for >>> draft-ietf-pce-binding-label-sid-07. Please review and share your >>> feedback, whatever it is, using the PCE mailing list. This WGLC >>> will end >>> on Thursday April 1st (no kidding). >>> >>> >>> Moreover, we have received a request from the authors for a code >>> point >>> allocation to support interoperability testing. >>> >>> RFC 7120 requires to meet the following criteria to proceed: >>> >>> b. The format, semantics, processing, and other rules related to >>> handling the protocol entities defined by the code points >>> (henceforth called "specifications") must be adequately described >>> in an Internet-Draft. >>> c. The specifications of these code points must be stable; i.e., >>> if >>> there is a change, implementations based on the earlier and later >>> specifications must be seamlessly interoperable. >>> >>> If anyone believes that the draft does not meet these criteria, >>> or >>> believes that early allocation is not appropriate for any other >>> reason, please send an email to the PCE mailing list explaining >>> why. If >>> the chairs hear no objections by Thursday, March 25th, we will >>> kick off >>> the "early" allocation request. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Dhruv & Julien >>> >>> >>> >>> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ >>> >>> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des >>> informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc >>> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si >>> vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler >>> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les >>> messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, >>> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, >>> deforme ou falsifie. Merci. >>> >>> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or >>> privileged information that may be protected by law; >>> they should not be distributed, used or copied without >>> authorisation. >>> If you have received this email in error, please notify the >>> sender and delete this message and its attachments. >>> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that >>> have been modified, changed or falsified. >>> Thank you. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pce mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pce mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >>> >>> -- >>> >>> [image: Image removed by sender.] <http://www.verizon.com/> >>> >>> *Gyan Mishra* >>> >>> *Network Solutions Architect * >>> >>> *Email [email protected] <[email protected]>* >>> >>> *M 301 502-1347* >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> [image: Image removed by sender.] <http://www.verizon.com/> >>> >>> *Gyan Mishra* >>> >>> *Network Solutions Architect * >>> >>> *Email [email protected] <[email protected]>* >>> >>> *M 301 502-1347* >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> [image: Image removed by sender.] <http://www.verizon.com/> >>> >>> *Gyan Mishra* >>> >>> *Network Solutions Architect * >>> >>> *Email [email protected] <[email protected]>* >>> >>> *M 301 502-1347* >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> >> <http://www.verizon.com/> >> >> *Gyan Mishra* >> >> *Network Solutions A**rchitect * >> >> *Email [email protected] <[email protected]>* >> >> >> >> *M 301 502-1347* >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pce mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce >> >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
