[Pce] 答复: Call for slot in the PCE WG at IETF 118

[Aijun Wang]

Hi, Dhruv:

 

I would like to ask one time slot to present the major changes to draft 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip/

The presentation information are the followings below:

 

- the draft(s) you want to discuss:  
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip/
- the expected presenter name: Aijun Wang/China Telecom
- will you be attending in-person or remote: In-Person
- the requested duration, including question time as part of the slot: 15 
Minutes
- the reason why you want to be on the agenda; What do you want to achieve? Why 
is a presentation necessary to achieve it?

To get the feedbacks and make consensus on some significant updates.

 

 

Best Regards

 

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

 

发件人: forwardingalgori...@ietf.org [mailto:forwardingalgori...@ietf.org] 代表 
Dhruv Dhody
发送时间: 2023年10月22日 15:06
收件人: pce@ietf.org
抄送: pce-chairs 
主题: Re: [Pce] Call for slot in the PCE WG at IETF 118

 

Hi, 

 

Gentle reminder to make your slot requests by tomorrow! 

 

Thanks! 

PCE Chairs & Secretary

 

 

On Sat, Oct 7, 2023 at 4:16 PM Dhruv Dhody mailto:d...@dhruvdhody.com> > wrote:

Hi,

The PCE WG would be meeting during the IETF 118 [1] week. If you need agenda 
time to progress some work, please send a slot request directly to the 
chairs/secretary mailto:pce-cha...@ietf.org> > by Monday, 
Oct 23rd by including:

- the draft(s) you want to discuss,
- the expected presenter name,
- will you be attending in-person or remote
- the requested duration, including question time as part of the slot,
- the reason why you want to be on the agenda; What do you want to achieve? Why 
is a presentation necessary to achieve it?

Please note - Asking for a slot does not mean you will get one. We will be 
prioritizing moving WG work first as well as drafts that were discussed on the 
mailing list. Please make sure to introduce your new draft or summarize an 
update on the mailing list. The last date to submit drafts is also Monday, Oct 
23rd [2]. Also, let us know if you have requested agenda time in a different WG 
session for the same topic.

Thanks!
PCE Chairs & Secretary

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/118/agenda.html
[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/important-dates/

___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

[Pce] 答复: Document Shepherd Review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-25

[Aijun Wang]

Hi, Dhruv:

 

Thanks for your detail review！

We have updated the draft according to your suggestions, please check whether 
they address your concerns.

The significant updates may be the followings:

1. Message flow procedures. I have updated the original table style to the 
flow chart style to reflect the time relationship between these messages.

2. BPI object encoding format to include the status field to reflect the 
BGP session status during the procedures.

3. Management Considerations.

 

Detail responses are inline below.

 

 

Best Regards

 

Aijun Wang

China Telecom

 

发件人: pce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:pce-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Dhruv Dhody
发送时间: 2023年8月31日 17:25
收件人: pce@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native...@ietf.org
主题: [Pce] Document Shepherd Review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-25

 

# Document Shepherd Review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-25

I have done a shepherd review of this I-D. I have some concerns that should be 
resolved before we send this to our AD.

I continue to believe that this I-D is better suited as experimental; authors 
seem to disagree.

【WAJ】We would like to keep it in Standard track.

## Major

- The use of the PCErr message to report an established BGP session as 'broken' 
is not right. The PCErr message is always sent in response to a message from a 
peer. We should use a PCRpt message with the status as 'down' in this case. 
Section 5.2 should also include the use of PCRpt messages during 
synchronization.
【WAJ】Have updated the BPI object encoding to include the “status” field, and 
uses it report the status of BGP session between BGP peers.

 


- The I-D is silent on Native-IP path update procedures. I think this should be 
highlighted -- The EPR update is done as per the make-before-break procedures, 
i.e., the PCECC first updates new native-ip instructions based on the updated 
path and then informs the source node to switch traffic before cleaning up the 
former instructions as described in [RFC9050].

 

【WAJ】 

 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-25#section-6.2
 has the corresponding descriptions:

“In order to avoid the transient loop during the deploy of explicit peer route, 
the EPR object should be sent to the PCCs in the reverse order of the E2E path. 
To remove the explicit peer route, the EPR object should be sent to the PCCs in 
the same order of E2E path.”  . And, based on your suggestions, add one more 
sentence in the end of this section：“If the PCE needs to update the path, it 
should first instruct new CCI with updated EPR corresponding to the new nexthop 
to use and then instruct the removal of older CCI”






- Section 7.4, it is difficult to decode this object. All you have is the 
length of the full object from the object header and it is difficult to decode 
how many prefixes exist with additional TLV of variable length allowed. It is 
also unclear on the advantage of using RFC 3209 subobjects here since the mix 
of subobject types is anyway not allowed. I suggest changing this to -


0   1   2   3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  Peer IPv4 Address|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | No. of Prefix |  Reserved |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  IPv4 Prefix #1   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Prefix #1 Len  |  Reserved |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   :   |
   |   :   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |  IPv4 Prefix #n   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Prefix #n Len  |  Reserved |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   //  Additional TLVs//
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


 

【WAJ】Update the associated encoding according to your suggestions。


- Section 9, I am worried about this -

   When the PCE sends out the PCInitiate message with the BPI object
   embedded to establish the BGP session between the PCC peers, it
   should wait enough time to get the BGP session successful
   establishment report from the underlay PCCs. If the PCE can't get
   such report after the 

[Pce] I-D Action: draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-26.txt

[internet-drafts]

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-26.txt is now
available. It is a work item of the Path Computation Element (PCE) WG of the
IETF.

   Title:   Path Computation Element Communication Protocol (PCEP) Extensions 
for Native IP Networks
   Authors: Aijun Wang
Boris Khasanov
Sheng Fang
Ren Tan
Chun Zhu
   Name:draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-26.txt
   Pages:   33
   Dates:   2023-10-22

Abstract:

   This document defines the Path Computation Element Communication
   Protocol (PCEP) extension for Central Control Dynamic Routing (CCDR)
   based applications in Native IP networks.  It describes the key
   information that is transferred between Path Computation Element
   (PCE) and Path Computation Clients (PCC) to accomplish the End to End
   (E2E) traffic assurance in the Native IP network under PCE as a
   central controller.

The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip/

There is also an HTMLized version available at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-26

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-native-ip-26

Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:
rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts


___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce

Re: [Pce] Call for slot in the PCE WG at IETF 118

[Dhruv Dhody]

Hi,

Gentle reminder to make your slot requests by tomorrow!

Thanks!
PCE Chairs & Secretary



> On Sat, Oct 7, 2023 at 4:16 PM Dhruv Dhody  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The PCE WG would be meeting during the IETF 118 [1] week. If you need
>> agenda time to progress some work, please send a slot request directly to
>> the chairs/secretary  by Monday, Oct 23rd by
>> including:
>>
>> - the draft(s) you want to discuss,
>> - the expected presenter name,
>> - will you be attending in-person or remote
>> - the requested duration, including question time as part of the slot,
>> - the reason why you want to be on the agenda; What do you want to
>> achieve? Why is a presentation necessary to achieve it?
>>
>> Please note - Asking for a slot does not mean you will get one. We will
>> be prioritizing moving WG work first as well as drafts that were discussed
>> on the mailing list. Please make sure to introduce your new draft or
>> summarize an update on the mailing list. The last date to submit drafts is
>> also Monday, Oct 23rd [2]. Also, let us know if you have requested agenda
>> time in a different WG session for the same topic.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> PCE Chairs & Secretary
>>
>> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/118/agenda.html
>> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/important-dates/
>>
>
___
Pce mailing list
Pce@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce