Re: [Pce] Query on Usage of LSP Identifier TLV in SR

Hi, Recent discussion started by Cyril and Stephane on PCE-SR draft reminded me that this issue is also still open - https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/XLxa7lrHtabXukzvJUWZCCwUROE or see below... Thanks! Dhruv On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:15 PM, Dhruv Dhody wrote:

Re: [Pce] Query on Usage of LSP Identifier TLV in SR

Hi WG, During the IETF-95, I discussed this open point in PCEP-SR draft with Jeff and Jon and also pointed out that the generic TE-Yang is using 5 tuple as a key in LSP-state information. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-03#section-3.4 module: ietf-te +--rw te!

Re: [Pce] Query on Usage of LSP Identifier TLV in SR

Hi Jeff, [PCEP-SR] did not change the format of the stateful PCE messages (i.e. RBNF of PCRpt/PCUpd); and [STATEFUL-PCE] does not have END-POINTS object in those messages. Only PCInitiate message [PCE-INITIATE] has END-POINTS object. In the implementations I am aware of, LSP Identifiers TLV is

Re: [Pce] Query on Usage of LSP Identifier TLV in SR

Hi Robert, I disagree with you, I don’t think we need RSVP-TE semantics here, in the implementations I'm aware of LSP Identifiers TLV is not used. END-POINTS object is used to identify the tunnel endpoint addresses. I do agree that SR draft should be clear about this and we will update it.

Re: [Pce] Query on Usage of LSP Identifier TLV in SR

Hi Robert, I agree, can the SR draft authors confirm (and make an update in the next revision)? Regards, Dhruv On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Robert Varga wrote: > On 10/12/2015 07:58 AM, Dhruv Dhody wrote: > > Hi Authors, > > > > In the stateful PCE draft [1], it says – > > The

Re: [Pce] Query on Usage of LSP Identifier TLV in SR

On 10/12/2015 07:58 AM, Dhruv Dhody wrote: Hi Authors, In the stateful PCE draft [1], it says – The LSP Identifiers TLV MUST be included in the LSP object in PCRpt messages for RSVP-signaled LSPs. The SR draft [2] did not mention anything about LSP Identifier TLV. And in implementations

Re: [Pce] Query on Usage of LSP Identifier TLV in SR

Hi Girish, Due to the very different levels of maturity between stateful-pce and MBB I-Ds, we do not see them merging. MBB I-D was very briefly discussed on the list a while ago, we do not know what the plans of the authors are... Regards, Julien Oct. 12, 2015 - girish...@gmail.com: