Anil,

Thanks for your detailed comments.  The inter-domain/inter-area scenario you 
discussed here is a good use case. Similarly, there are other existing MPLS 
features supported today in service provider networks where the requirements 
for LSP tunnels are complex. To satisfy more of these existing requirements and 
also to satisfy more of the new requirements resulting from new application 
oriented services,  more extensions for IGP to distribute SIDs/Segment labels 
may need to be added down the road.  Eventually either some of the existing 
MPLS features cannot be supported anymore or the future IGP protocol may look 
like a combination of current IGP and parts of LDP/RSVP-TE protocols.



Instead of extending the IGP to distribute SID/segment labels, using PCE as the 
central controller to distribute the SIDs/labels to setup LSP tunnels is an 
alternative where it has some advantages. One of these advantages  is that the 
SR-TE LSP can be supported to reduce the LSP states in the network and at the 
same time, all the other existing MPLS features including the MPLS multicast 
and new application oriented features can be supported by just extending the 
existing PCEP.



The texts you suggested here look good and we will incorporate the use case 
into the next version of the protocol extension draft and also the use case 
draft.
We would like to hear more suggestions/comments for our drafts both from SPRNG 
working group and from PCE working group.
Quintin

From: Anil Kumar S N (VRP Network BL)
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 11:54 AM
To: [email protected]; Quintin zhao; Katherine Zhao; [email protected]; 
Udayasree palle; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: VinodS Kumar; Veerendranatha Reddy Vallem
Subject: Mail regarding draft-zhao-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller

Hi Authors,

          Since PCE Controller has global view of the network.  There are 
services which spread across multiple AS or IGP domain.  SR domain can be 
extended across IGP domain to achieve the service requirement as SR domain can 
also span across IGP Domain. But by using IGP to distribute Segment labels has 
one drawback, Where all the external prefixes imported by an ASBR will be 
originated as prefix SID(usually generated by ASBR) in area or AS scope RI LSA 
TLV (OSPF terminology).  But will not be able to originate adjacent segment 
SIDs of other IGP domain due to this intermediate nodes on the path has to 
understand LSP information and push required SR labels which is not desired in 
segment routing (path has to be decided at the ingress).

In case of SR-TE, PCE can give end to end(across AREA or across AS) SR-TE path 
with all the TE requirement satisfied, PCE as a controller should ensure 
SR-Node labels remain unique across AS till the scope of SR domain.

I would like to add a section under "5.5.2.  PCECC Segment Routing (SR)" as 
below  :


5.5.2.3.  PCECC SR-TE IGP/SR Domain



   PCECC will ensure in allocating unique SR Node Lables across SR

   Domain. There will be cases where some service spread across multiple

   IGP domain yet with in SR Domain. One Such example is Seamless MPLS

   which provides an architecture to support a wide variety of different

   services on a single MPLS platform fully integrating access,

   aggregation and core network. In such cases PCE can help SR ingress

   router to have label stack consist of SR node label and SR Adj Labels

   from different IGP domain.



   The PCECC will send PCLabelUpd to update the SR label information which

   might belong to different IGP doamin yet belong to same SR domain to

   required nodes which fall on the path to reach till the destination.



   PCECC will ensure all TE requirements are addressed while setting up

   the explicit path and required SR label stack is updated to ingress

   node.



   The forwarding behavior will not be different as labels processed

   by  intermediate nodes. ASBR will seamlessly forward the packet

   as the FEC is updated by PCE using PCLabelUpd message.



   The Path Setup Type MUST be set for PCECC SR-TE (see Section 7.3).

   The rest of the PCEP procedures and mechanism are similar to

   [I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing].



   PCE rely on the Adj label cleanup using the same PCLabelUpd message.


p.s.  Segment Routing Architecture [draft-ietf-spring-segment-routing-01] says  
"IGP-prefix Segment, Prefix-SID: an IGP-Prefix Segment is an IGP segment 
attached to an IGP prefix.

    An IGP-Prefix Segment is always global within the SR/IGP domain"

Thanks & Regards
Anil S N

"Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send" - Jon Postel


_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring

Reply via email to